HHH Ltd. of Greenville v. Hiller

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

HHH Ltd. of Greenville, Respondent,

v.

Randall S. Hiller, Robert E. Hiller, and Randall S. Hiller,
P.A., Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000159

Appeal From Greenville County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-338
Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 29, 2016

APPEAL DISMISSED

Randall Scott Hiller, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Randy A. Skinner, of Skinner Law Firm, LLC, John T.
Crawford, Jr., of Kenison Dudley & Crawford, LLC, and
M. Stokely Holder, of Holder, Padgett, Littlejohn &
Prickett, LLC, all of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appeal dismissed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: Mountain Lake Colony v. McJunkin, 308 S.C. 202, 204, 417
S.E.2d 578, 579 (1992) (finding ordinarily, a decision granting or denying an order
of reference is not immediately appealable); Williford v. Downs, 265 S.C. 319,
321, 218 S.E.2d 242, 243 (1975) (noting an exception to the general rule if the
reference order's result will deprive a party of a mode of trial to which he is
entitled); Verenes v. Alvanos, 387 S.C. 11, 15, 690 S.E.2d 771, 772 (2010)
("Whether a party is entitled to a jury trial is a question of law."); Wachovia Bank,
Nat'l Ass'n v. Blackburn, 407 S.C. 321, 328, 755 S.E.2d 437, 441 (2014)
("Appellate courts may decide questions of law with no particular deference to the
circuit court's findings."); Albertson v. Robinson, 371 S.C. 311, 315, 638 S.E.2d
81, 83 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An action to set aside a transfer as fraudulent pursuant to
the Statute of Elizabeth is an action in equity."); Williford, 265 S.C. at 321, 218
S.E.2d at 243 ("In equity the parties are not entitled, as a matter of right, to a trial
by jury."); Blackburn, 407 S.C. at 328, 755 S.E.2d at 441 ("However,
counterclaims–including those raised in equitable actions–may, at times, be
entitled to a jury trial."); id. at 329, 755 S.E.2d at 441 ("If the complaint is
equitable and the counterclaim is legal and compulsory, the plaintiff or the
defendant has a right to a jury trial on the counterclaim." (emphasis added)); id. at
328, 755 S.E.2d at 441 ("If the complaint is equitable and the counterclaim is legal
and permissive, the defendant waives his right to a jury trial."); First-Citizens Bank
& Trust Co. of S.C. v. Hucks, 305 S.C. 296, 298, 408 S.E.2d 222, 223 (1991) ("By
definition, a counterclaim is compulsory only if it arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim."); N.C. Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n v. DAV Corp., 298 S.C. 514, 518, 381 S.E.2d 903, 905 (1989) (adopting the
"logical relationship test" to determine whether a claim is compulsory or
permissive); Beach Co. v. Twillman, Ltd., 351 S.C. 56, 61, 566 S.E.2d 863, 865
(Ct. App. 2002) ("Whether a counterclaim is logically related to the initial claim
depends upon the facts of each case.").1

APPEAL DISMISSED.2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
Appellant also appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion for summary
judgment. We do not address this issue because it too is not immediately
appealable. See Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443, 457, 756 S.E.2d 155, 162
(Ct. App. 2014) ("The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not appealable
because it does not finally determine anything about the merits or strike a
defense.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.