Gee v. Drakeford

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Charles B. Gee 

d/b/a CAPS Funding,       
Respondent,

v.

Norman Pearley Drakeford d/b/a DraTec Communications Services, Joan
Drakeford,
Government Telecommunications, Inc. and Philip Van Poole

d/b/a JesCom Corporation,        Defendants,

Of whom Government Telecommunications, Inc. is       
Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-268

Submitted April 7, 2003 – Filed April
15, 2003

AFFIRMED

Edward D. Sullivan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

R. Hawthorne Barrett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7,
550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001) (holding summary judgment is appropriate when no
genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law); 5 S.C. Jur. Assignments § 13 (1991) (stating non-personal
“[d]ebt under a contract . . . is generally assignable”); S.C. Code Ann. § 36‑9‑318(3)
(Supp. 2000) (stating an assignment of payments must be reasonable); 6 Am. Jur.
2d Assignments § 138 (1999) (stating “[n]o special form of notice of
an assignment . . . is required; any notice is adequate . . . if it reaches
the person to be notified in such a manner and under such circumstances that
a reasonable person would regard it as notice and be guided accordingly”); S.C.
Code Ann. § 36-9-318 cmt. 5 (stating “[w]hat is ‘reasonable’ is not left to
the arbitrary decision of the account debtor); cf. Adams v. G.J. Creel
& Sons, Inc., 320 S.C. 274, 279, 465 S.E.2d 84, 86 (1995) (holding “[a]lthough
the question of reasonableness is generally a question for the jury, [the plaintiff]
failed to sustain the initial burden of setting forth sufficient facts to establish
a jury question[,]” and thus, a directed verdict in favor of the defendant was
appropriate).

AFFIRMED.1

STILWELL, HOWARD, JJ., and STROM, Acting Judge,
concur.

1
Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal,
we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.