Creswell v. Culbertson

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

Blanche G. Creswell, Appellant,

v.

Robin Culbertson, Chip Culbertson, d/b/a Asheville
Cotton Company, and Asheville Cotton Company,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001667

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-147
Submitted January 1, 2017 – Filed April 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Gregory Alan Morton, of Donnan & Morton, PA, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

James P. Walsh and John D. Harjehausen, both of
Clarkson Walsh Terrell & Coulter, PA, of Greenville, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Blanche G. Creswell appeals the dismissal of her personal injury
action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. We affirm1 pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Moosally v. W.W. Norton &
Co., 358 S.C. 320, 327, 594 S.E.2d 878, 882 (Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled
that the party seeking to invoke personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
via our long-arm statute bears the burden of proving the existence of personal
jurisdiction."); Cockrell v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 363 S.C. 485, 491, 611 S.E.2d
505, 508 (2005) ("The question of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant is one which must be resolved upon the facts of each particular case.");
id. ("The decision of the trial court [regarding whether it can exercise personal
jurisdiction] should be affirmed unless unsupported by the evidence or influenced
by an error of law."); Power Prods. & Servs. Co. v. Kozma, 379 S.C. 423, 434, 665
S.E.2d 660, 666 (Ct. App. 2008) (noting the plaintiff's failure "to make any
allegations or produce any evidence a South Carolina resident purchased any
product from or because of [the defendant's] website, or that the website was
particularly directed at South Carolinians" as a reason to reject the argument that
certain statements in the website warranted a finding that South Carolina had
personal jurisdiction over the defendant).

AFFIRMED.

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

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