Krauss v. Dupre

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Jack Krauss, Appellant,

v.

Andrew Dupre, Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

 John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-090

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 20, 2009

AFFIRMED

Steven L. Smith and Zachary J. Closser, both of Charleston, for
Appellant. 

Andrew Dupre, Pro Se, of Charleston, Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this breach of contract action, Jack Krauss
argues the trial court erred granting Andrew Dupre's summary judgment motion because
additional facts should have been developed.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wilson v. Moseley, 327 S.C.
144, 146, 488 S.E.2d 862, 865 (1997) (stating summary judgment is appropriate
when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law); SSI Med. Servs., Inc. v. Cox, 
301 S.C. 493, 497, 392 S.E.2d 789, 792 (1990) (holding the non-moving party may
not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings but must set
forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial); S.C. Code
Ann. §15-3-530(1) (2005) (indicating a three-year statute of limitations applies to breach of
contract claims); Maher v. Tietex Corp., 331 S.C. 371, 377, 500 S.E.2d
204, 207 (Ct. App. 1998) ("Pursuant to the discovery rule, a breach of
contract action accrues not on the date of the breach, but rather on the date
the aggrieved party either discovered the breach, or could or should have
discovered the breach through the exercise of reasonable diligence."); Rushing v. McKinney, 370 S.C. 280, 295, 633 S.E.2d 917, 925 (Ct. App.
2006) (holding Appellant was precluded from recovering on a theory of
promissory estoppel where he "could not clearly articulate the terms of
the alleged oral contract").   

AFFIRMED.

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