Henson v. Henson

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

In Re: Trust EIP Created Under the Last Will and
Testament of Eunice I. Page Dated October 14, 1992,

Richard S. Henson and Vann Kenneth Henson,
Respondents,

v.

Albert T. Henson, Jr. and Julian Reid Henson,
Respondents in the Court below,

Of Whom Albert T. Henson is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000095

Appeal From Dorchester County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-244
Submitted May 1, 2018 – Filed June 13, 2018

AFFIRMED

Daniel Francis Blanchard, III, of Rosen Rosen &
Hagood, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Paul M. Lynch, Trudy Hartzog Robertson, and E.
Brandon Gaskins, all of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, of
Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Albert Henson, Jr. appeals a circuit court order dismissing his
appeal of a probate court order. On appeal, Henson argues the circuit court erred
in holding the probate court order was not immediately appealable because the
probate court order (1) affected a substantial right made in a special proceeding
under section 14-3-330(3) of the South Carolina Code (2016) and (2) granted,
continued, or refused an injunction under section 14-3-330(4) of the South
Carolina Code (2016). We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

As to the appealability of the probate court order: Lollis v. Dutton, 421 S.C. 467,
477, 807 S.E.2d 723, 728 (Ct. App. 2017) ("This [c]ourt reviews all questions of
law de novo." (alteration in original) (quoting Fesmire v. Digh, 385 S.C. 296, 302,
683 S.E.2d 803, 807 (Ct. App. 2009))); Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 13, 625
S.E.2d 205, 208 (2005) ("Absent some specialized statute, the immediate
appealability of an interlocutory or intermediate order depends on whether the
order falls within [section] 14-3-330." (emphasis added)); Fulmer v. Cain, 380 S.C.
466, 469, 670 S.E.2d 652, 654 (2008) ("Appeals from the probate court are
governed by [section 62-1-308 of the South Carolina Code (2009 & Supp.
2017)]."); § 62-1-308(a) (providing "a person interested in a final order, sentence,
or decree of a probate court may appeal to the circuit court in the same county"
(emphasis added)); Estate of Boyce v. Work, 305 S.C. 43, 44, 406 S.E.2d 184, 185
(Ct. App. 1991) (holding a probate court order was "clearly temporary" and not
final under section 62-1-308(a) when the order appointed special administrators to
an estate until a personal representative could be formally appointed and forbade
distribution of the estate's assets).

As to Henson's remaining issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.,
335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need
not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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