Guess v. Benebict College

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Thurmond Guess,       
Appellant,

v.

Benedict College et al,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

Joseph M. Strickland, Special Circuit
Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-404

Submitted April 18, 2003 – Filed
June 17, 2003

AFFIRMED

Thurmond Guess, of Columbia, pro se.

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Georgia Anna Mitchell,
and S. Elizabeth Brosnan, all of Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Thurmond Guess sued Benedict
College, alleging fraud and “bad faith” arising out of Guess’ failure to receive
matching funds for money he deposited into a special savings account as part
of a grant Benedict College received from the U.S. Department of Labor to assist
non-custodial parents in becoming gainfully employed.  Benedict College filed
a motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions seeking attorney fees
and costs in defending the action pursuant to the South Carolina Frivolous Civil
Proceedings Sanctions Act.  The judge granted both motions and awarded Benedict
College $14,304.45 for attorney fees and costs.  Guess filed a motion to alter
or amend the judgment, in which the judge denied.  Guess appeals, arguing the
judge erred in granting Benedict College’s motion for summary judgment and the
judge abused his discretion by denying Guess’ motion to alter or amend the judgment
without holding a hearing.

We affirm
[1] pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp. 2002), Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR, and the following authorities:  I.  Summary Judgment:  Rule 56(c),
SCRCP (summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”); Young v. South
Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, 333 S.C. 714, 511 S.E.2d 413 (Ct. App. 1999)
(holding summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law); Vermeer Carolina’s, Inc. v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 336 S.C.
53, 518 S.E.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating that in determining whether any
triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences there
from must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment).

II.  Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment:  Rule 59(f), SCRCP (“The motion
may in the discretion of the court be determined on briefs filed by the parties
without oral argument.”); Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C.
580, 553 S.E.2d 110 (2001) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's
decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law.”). 

AFFIRMED.

CONNOR, ANDERSON, and HUFF, JJ., concur.

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