Consolidated Tires v. Hamlett

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

Consolidated
Tires, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Ken Hamlett, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-308  

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 17,
2011

REVERSED

Ken E. Hamlett, pro se, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Erin Culbertson and James Cassidy, both of
Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ken
Hamlett appeals a circuit court's grant of a temporary injunction that
prohibited him from occupying two houses on a tract of land owned by
Consolidated Tires, Inc. (Consolidated).  Consolidated originally sought Hamlett’s
ejectment because it wanted to build new corporate headquarters on the
property.  Hamlett argues the circuit court erred in (1) permitting Consolidated
to renew a previously denied motion for a temporary injunction; (2) granting
the temporary injunction upon insufficient evidence; (3) failing to hold a jury trial for the temporary injunction; (4) failing
to provide an accurate hearing transcript; (5) depriving him of due process by considering
affidavits and exhibits not filed with the renewed motion; (6) advocating on
behalf of Consolidated; and (7) orchestrating an unconstitutional taking of his
rights to the property.  We reverse.[1]

"The grant of an
injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of that discretion."  AJG Holdings, LLC v.
Dunn, 382 S.C. 43, 49, 674 S.E.2d 505, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted).  "An
injunction is a drastic remedy . . . ."  Id. at 50, 674 S.E.2d at 508 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).  A
court may issue a temporary injunction "only if necessary to preserve the
status quo ante, and only upon a showing by the moving party that without such
relief it will suffer irreparable harm, that it has a likelihood of success on
the merits, and that there is no adequate remedy at law."  Poynter
Invs., Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583, 586-87,
694 S.E.2d 15, 17 (2010). 

Here,
the circuit court abused its discretion.  The temporary injunction was not
necessary to preserve the status quo, and in fact, the injunction would do the
opposite by removing Hamlett from the property.  Moreover, an adequate remedy
at law exists because Consolidated could be awarded a monetary judgment against
Hamlett if Consolidated's suit is successful.

Because we reverse on the
above issue, we need not address the remaining issues.  See Futch v.
McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591,
598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not address remaining issues when a
decision on a prior issue is dispositive).

REVERSED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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