Panther v. Catto Enterprises

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Joseph H. Panther,       
Appellant,

v.

Catto Enterprises, Inc.,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-293

Submitted April 7, 2003 - Filed April
30, 2003

AFFIRMED

H. Michael Spivey, of Mauldin, for Appellant

Michael N. Duncan, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR, and the following authorities: As to issue I: Whetstone v. Whetstone,
309 S.C. 227, 231-32, 420 S.E.2d 877, 879 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding, “to prove
the existence of a trust [for realty], the law requires . . . a [written] declaration
creating the trust”).

As to issues II & V: Rule 207(D), SCACR (stating
the argument portion of a brief must include citations to authority); see
Parks v. Morris Homes Corp., 245 S.C. 461, 471, 141 S.E.2d 129, 134 (1965)
(holding where “no . . . authority [is] cited to sustain the exception, it is
properly considered abandoned [on appeal]”).

As to issue III: Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C.
84, 89, 382 S.E.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1989) (defining dicta is “an expression
or statement by the court on a matter not . . . necessary to a decision thereof”);
In re Thames, 344 S.C. 564, 572-73, 544 S.E.2d 854, 858 (Ct. App. 2001)
(indicating where the trial court’s order makes reference to matters that are
irrelevant to the court’s decision, the matter is considered dicta and may be
ignored); cf. City of Spartanburg v. Parris, 251 S.C. 187, 191-92,
161 S.E.2d 228, 230 (1968) (“[Because] the decision of the circuit court did
not turn on the sufficiency of the evidence, the statements in the order appealed
from concerning the degree of proof required and the burden of proof before
the Commission are obiter dictum, and the exceptions thereto raise no issues
for decision by [this Court].”).

As to issue IV: Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P’ship,
312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding an issue is
deemed abandoned, and thus, not preserved for appellate review if argued in
a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority).

AFFIRMED.1

STILWELL, HOWARD, JJ., and STROM, Acting Judge,
concur.

1
Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal,
we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.