Hunt v. Warder

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Ethel C. Hunt,       
Appellant,

v.

Richard H. Warder, David D. Armstrong, and W. Dennis Chamberlain,       
Respondents.

Appeal From Greenville County

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-006

Submitted January 12, 2004 – Filed January
14, 2004

AFFIRMED

Ethel C. Hunt, of Columbia, pro se.

James H. Cassidy, Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, Samuel W. Outten
and Langdon Cheves, III, all of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed
pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following
authorities: As to all issues: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating summary judgment
is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
. . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”); Osborne
v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001) (“In determining whether
any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences
therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”). 

As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of
Richard Warder, David Armstrong, and Dennis Chamberlain on the statute of limitations
defense:  True v. Monteith, 327 S.C. 116, 119, 489 S.E.2d 615, 616
(1997) (“Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run
from the date the injured party either knows or should know, by the exercise
of reasonable diligence, that a cause of action exists for the wrongful conduct.”);
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (Supp. 2002) (stating all actions initiated under
section 15-3-530(5) must be commenced within three years after the person knew,
or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that a cause of
action existed).

As to the circuit court’s ruling in
favor of Warder on the res judicata defense:  Town of Sullivan’s
Island v. Felger, 318 S.C. 340, 344, 457 S.E.2d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 1995)
(“The doctrine [of res judicata] requires three essential elements: 
(1) the judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in
the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second
action must involve matter properly included in the first action.”).

As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of
Armstrong and Chamberlain on the res judicata defense:  Id.;
Pye v. Aycock, 325 S.C. 426, 432, 480 S.E.2d 455, 458 (Ct. App. 1997)
(holding, in determining whether res judicata applies, the identity of
the parties in the first lawsuit also includes persons in privity with the named
parties); Richburg v. Baughman, 290 S.C. 431, 434, 351 S.E.2d 164, 166
(1986) (“‘Privity’ as used in the context of res judicata . . . does
not embrace relationships between persons or entities, but rather it deals with
a person’s relationship to the subject matter of the litigation.”). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.