Reliford v. Sussman

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL
VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS

PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Ephrain Reliford, Jr., Appellant,

v.

William J. Sussman, Respondent.

Appeal From Aiken County

 Rodney A. Peeples, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-054  

Submitted January 1, 2005 – Filed January 21, 2005

AFFIRMED

Ephrain Reliford, Jr., of Kershaw, pro se, for Appellant.

Maureen O. Floyd, of Augusta, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Reliford appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his action
against his former attorney.  Specifically, Reliford argues the trial court
erred by ruling it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and his action was
barred by res judicata.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR,
and the following authorities:

As to Reliford’s contention that the trial court erred in ruling it did not
have subject matter jurisdiction:  see Reliford v. Sussman, Op.
No. 2002-UP-305 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed April 29, 2002) (affirming the trial court’s
dismissal of the original complaint due to the insufficiency of service of process); 
see also B.C. Huggins v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252
S.C. 353, 357, 166 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1969) (“It is well settled in this jurisdiction
that a decision of this court on a former appeal is the law of the case.”); 
Barth v. Barth, 293 S.C. 305, 308, 360 S.E.2d 309, 310 (1987) (“Ordinarily,
the disposition of a case in the Court of Appeals when certiorari is not applied
for nor granted becomes the law of the case.”).

As to Reliford’s contention that the trial court erred in ruling his action
was barred by res judicata:  see Laughon v.
O’Braitis, 360 S.C. 520, 527, 602 S.E.2d 108, 112 (Ct. App. 2004)
(“It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that material facts or questions
which were directly in issue in a former action, and were there admitted or
judicially determined, are conclusively settled by a judgment rendered therein,
and that such facts or questions become res judicata and may not
again be litigated in a subsequent action between the same parties or their
privies, regardless of the form that the issue may take in the subsequent action.”)

AFFIRMED. [1]

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.