Gainey v. Gainey

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

Kenneth R. Gainey, Appellant,

v.

Timothy M. Gainey, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000904

Appeal From Lancaster County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-334
Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 29, 2016

AFFIRMED

Philip E. Wright, of Lancaster, for Appellant.

Lucy L. McDow, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: RFT Mgmt. Co. v. Tinsley & Adams L.L.P., 399 S.C. 322, 331-32, 732
S.E.2d 166, 171 (2012) ("When reviewing the trial court's ruling on a motion for a
directed verdict or a JNOV, this [c]ourt must apply the same standard as the trial
court by viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party."); id. at 332, 732 S.E.2d at 171 ("The trial court
must deny a motion for a directed verdict or JNOV if the evidence yields more
than one reasonable inference or its inference is in doubt."); id. ("Moreover, '[a]
motion for JNOV may be granted only if no reasonable jury could have reached
the challenged verdict.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Gastineau v. Murphy, 331
S.C. 565, 568, 503 S.E.2d 712, 713 (1998))); id. ("An appellate court will reverse
the trial court's ruling only if no evidence supports the ruling below."); id. ("In
deciding such motions, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has the
authority to decide credibility issues or to resolve conflicts in the testimony or the
evidence.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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