Purcell v. Ferrara

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD
NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Cynthia Purcell, Appellant,

v.
William R. Ferrara and Julie D.
Ferrara, Respondents.

__________

Appeal from Aiken County
James D. Bailey, Special Referee
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-449
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Tucker S. Player, of Columbia, for Appellant.

William R. Ferrara, pro se, of Aiken.

PER CURIAM: Cynthia Purcell appeals the order of the special
referee denying her injunctive relief, arguing the order is inconsistent and not
supported by the evidence presented at trial. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist.
No. 2 v. Interkal, Inc., 348 S.C. 446, 450, 559 S.E.2d 866, 868 (Ct. App.
2002) ("In actions in equity referred to a special referee with finality, the
appellate court may view the evidence to determine the facts in accordance
with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, though it is not
required to disregard the findings of the special referee."); Shaw v. Coleman,
373 S.C. 485, 496, 645 S.E.2d 252, 258 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The traditional
concept of a nuisance requires a landowner to demonstrate that the defendant
unreasonably interfered with his ownership or possession of the land."
(citation and quotation marks omitted)); LeFurgy v. Long Cove Club Owners
Ass'n, 313 S.C. 555, 558, 443 S.E.2d 577, 578 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The remedy
of injunction is a drastic one and should be cautiously applied only when
legal rights are unlawfully invaded or legal duties are willfully or wantonly
neglected.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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