National City Bank v. Hemelt

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

National City Bank,       
Respondent,

v.

Carol A. Hemelt,       
Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John Buford Grier, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-647

Submitted October 6, 2003 – Filed November
6, 2003

AFFIRMED

Carol A. Hemelt, for Appellant

J. Ronald Jones, Jr. of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  National City Bank brought
this action against Carol A. Hemelt demanding judgment for overdue credit card
debt.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank, finding
Hemelt owed the sum of $7,803.05 plus interest and the cost of the legal action. 
Hemelt appeals.  We find the issues presented in this appeal are manifestly
without merit and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following
authorities:  George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874
(2001) (“The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite disposition of cases
which do not require the services of a fact finder.”); Anders v. S.C. Farm
Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 307 S.C. 371, 373,415 S.E.2d 406, 407 (Ct. App. 1992)
(“It is well established that summary judgment should be granted ‘. . . in cases
in which plain, palpable and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds
cannot differ.’”) (quoting Main v. Corley, 281 S.C. 525, 526, 316 S.E.2d
406, 407 (1984)); Bloom v. Ravoira, 339 S.C. 417, 529 S.E.2d 710 (2000)
(stating where a verdict is not reasonably possible under the facts presented,
summary judgment is proper); Baughman v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.,
306 S.C. 101, 115, 410 S.E.2d 537, 545 (1991) (stating that once the party seeking
summary judgment meets the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must “‘do more than simply
show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts’ but ‘must
come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.’”) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986)) (emphasis
in original)); Bayle v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 344 S.C. 115,
128, 542 S.E.2d 736, 742 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating the trial court’s rulings
in matters involving discovery will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear
showing of an abuse of discretion); Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69,
580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2002) (stating nonmoving party to summary judgment motion
“must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional
relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a ‘fishing expedition.’”)
(internal quotation marks omitted)

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.