SCDOT v. Grice, Mercer & Livingston, LLC

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

South Carolina
Department of Transportation, Respondent,

v.

Grice, Mercer,
& Livingston, LLC, Appellant,

and

Lattie M.
Upchurch, Jr. (Mortgagee), James Stanley Grice, Sr. (Mortgagee), Harold N.
Livingston, Sr. (Mortgagee), Dominion Credit, LLC F/K/A Wakita Capital, LLC (Judgment),
Magnolia Tire Company (Judgment), Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority
(Construction Assessment), Defendants.

Appeal From Horry County

J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-240

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 24, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Amanda A. Bailey, of Myrtle Beach, and
Chad B. Hatley, of North Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

John B. McCutcheon, Jr. and Mary Ruth
Baxter, both of Conway; and Barbara M. Wessinger, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Grice, Mercer & Livingston, LLC appeals the jury verdict finding for the South
Carolina Department of Transportation, arguing the following: (1) the trial
court erred in allowing into evidence the March 2006 sale of the property as a
comparable sale; and (2) the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new
trial because it admitted into evidence the March 2006 sale of the property and
allowed the State to use it as evidence of a benefit to the property.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred in
allowing the March 2006 sale into evidence: S.C. State Highway Dep't v. Wilson, 254 S.C. 360, 369, 175 S.E.2d 391, 396 (1970) ("[T]he admission
or exclusion of evidence is a matter which is addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial judge and that in the absence of a clear abuse of such discretion,
amounting to an error of law, his ruling will not be disturbed."); S.C.
Code Ann. § 28-2-340(A)(5) (2007) (providing "evidence of the price and
other terms upon the sale or the rent reserved and other terms of any lease or
tenancy relating to the property or to any similar property in the vicinity
when the sale or leasing occurred or the tenancy existed within a reasonable
time of the hearing" is admissible "[f]or the purpose of determining
the value of the land sought to be condemned and fixing just compensation in a
hearing").

2. As to
whether the trial court erred in denying its motion for a new trial: Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182, 185, 687 S.E.2d 54, 56 (Ct. App. 2009)
("The grant or denial of new trial motions rests within the discretion of
the [trial] court, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless its
findings are wholly unsupported by the evidence or the conclusions reached are
controlled by error of law."). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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