Louise D. Anton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard J. Anton v. Hallums, 371 S.E.2d 525, 528 S.C. 1988 . Anton sued General Electric alleging that…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1341
LOUISE D. ANTON, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Richard J. Anton,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-768-3-17)
Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 16, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Tighe, Demetri K. Koutrakos, CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON,
L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William C. Wood,
Jr., NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* Richard J. Anton died during the pendency of this
litigation. His personal representative, Louise D. Anton, was
substituted as the plaintiff in the action.
2
PER CURIAM:
Louise D. Anton * appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of General Electric and dismissing this
civil action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
S.C. Code Ann. § 10-143 (Law Co-op. 1952), and by the equitable
doctrine of laches. Hallums v. Hallums, 371 S.E.2d 525, 528 (S.C.
1988). Anton sued General Electric alleging that the company had
failed to issue him eighty-eight shares of stock as a result of a
three-for-one stock split in 1954. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. The
district court properly concluded that a reasonable person would
have known or should have known of the effect of the 1954 stock
split on her shares long before 1999. See Republic Contracting
Corp. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 503
S.E.2d 761, 766 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, the district
court’s order is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --