Walt Parker v. John C. Curl

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

Walt Parker, Appellant,

v.

John C. Curl, Respondent,

v.

Palmetto Floor Covering Installation, LLC, and Florence
Custom Countertops, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001370

Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-304
Submitted June 1, 2022 – Filed July 20, 2022

AFFIRMED

William Reynolds Williams, of Willcox Buyck &
Williams, PA, of Florence, for Appellant.

Jon Rene Josey and Jeffrey L. Payne, both of Turner
Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Florence, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Walt Parker appeals the circuit court's order denying his request
for specific performance and permanent injunction. Parker argues the circuit court
erred by (1) considering the defense of unclean hands when it was not raised by
John C. Curl and (2) finding Parker's post-contractual activity divested him of his
entitlement to additional shares in Florence Carpet & Tile, Inc. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We find Parker's arguments have been abandoned on appeal. See State v. Lindsey,
394 S.C. 354, 363, 714 S.E.2d 554, 558 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed
abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief
but not supported by authority."); Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348
S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("South Carolina law clearly
states that short, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are
deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review."). In his
appellate brief, Parker makes short, conclusory statements and fails to cite to any
relevant legal authority in support of his arguments. The majority of Parker's brief
is a mere recitation of the evidence and testimony presented at trial. Accordingly,
we find Parker's arguments are abandoned on appeal and decline to address the
merits of the issues.
AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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