Rashford v. Christopher

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Allan A. Rashford, Respondent,

v.

Joanne Christopher,
Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Burnic Evelyn
Burris Jones, Randolph Burris Jones and Thomas Powell Jones, Appellants.

Appeal From Charleston County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-222

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 27,
2009 

AFFIRMED

Stanley C. Rodgers of Charleston, for Appellants.

Dwayne
M. Green of Charleston for Respondent.  

PER
CURIAM:  Joanne Christopher, Randolph Burris Jones, and Thomas
Powell Jones (collectively Appellants) argue the trial court erred in granting
a directed verdict in favor of Allan Rashford.  On appeal, Appellants contend
the agreement entered into by Rashford and Burnic Jones did not require them to
sell property to Rashford within one year of Jones' death.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  Law v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 368 S.C. 424, 434-35, 629
S.E.2d 642, 648 (2006) (stating the appellate court will reverse the trial
court's ruling on a directed verdict motion only when there is no evidence to
support the ruling or when the ruling is controlled by an error of law); Cock-N-Bull
Steak House, Inc. v. Generali Ins. Co., 321 S.C. 1, 4, 466 S.E.2d 727, 729
(1996) (noting a directed verdict is proper when the evidence at trial yields
only one inference); Tommy L. Griffin Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Jordan,
Jones & Goulding, Inc., 351 S.C. 459, 474, 570 S.E.2d 197, 205 (Ct.
App. 2002) ("Inasmuch as the construction of the
subject contract can be
determined by consideration of the plain and unambiguous language of the contract, it becomes a question of law to be resolved by the court .
. . ."); Jordan v. Sec. Group, Inc., 311 S.C. 227, 230, 428
S.E.2d 705, 707 (1993) ("Where the language of a contract is plain and
capable of legal construction, that language alone determines the instrument's
force and effect.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and PIEPER,
J., and LOCKEMY, J., concur.