Sherald v. City of Myrtle Beach

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

Pearlie Mae Sherald, Appellant,

v.

City of Myrtle Beach, Respondent.

Appeal From Horry County

Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-449

Heard October 6, 2010 – Filed October
19, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Howard
S. Sheftman and William R. Padget, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Michael
W. Battle, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  This appeal arises from a circuit court order affirming the Myrtle Beach City
Council's revocation of Pearlie Mae Sherald's business license to operate a
night club in downtown Myrtle Beach.  After a thorough review of the evidence
in the record, we find the City's grounds for revocation are supported by the
evidence.  Accordingly, we affirm the order of the circuit court pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. §
15-43-10(A) (2005) ("A person who erects, establishes, continues,
maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or releases any building or other
place used for the purposes of . . . prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful
possession or sale of controlled substances . . . in this State is guilty of a
nuisance."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-40 (2005) ("[E]vidence of the
general reputation of the place shall be competent for the purpose of proving
the existence of the nuisance."); Section 11-35 of the Myrtle Beach City
Code (providing, in pertinent part, for the suspension or revocation of a
business license when a licensee has: (1) breached any condition upon which his
license was issued or has failed to comply with the provisions of this article;
(2) obtained a license through fraud, misrepresentation, a false or misleading
statement, evasion, or suppression of a material fact in the license
application; or (3) engaged in unlawful activity or nuisance related to the
business); Amrik
Singh & SBPS, Inc. v. City of Greenville, 384 S.C. 365, 370, 681 S.E.2d
921, 924 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When the city council of a municipality
has acted after considering all of the facts, this court should not disturb the
finding unless such action is arbitrary, unreasonable, or an obvious abuse of its
discretion."); Gay v. City of Beaufort, 364 S.C. 252, 254,
612 S.E.2d 467, 468 (Ct. App. 2005) ("This court will not disturb on
appeal such findings of the city council, concurred in by a circuit judge,
unless they are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance
of the evidence.").[1] 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS
and PIEPER, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

[1]  Based on our
disposition herein, Sherald is not entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-77-300 (2005).