Opinion
2012-UP-449
07-18-2012
Cynthia Purcell, Appellant, v. William R Ferrara and Julie D. Ferrara, Respondents.
Tucker S. Player, of Columbia, for Appellant. William R. Ferrara, pro se, of Aiken.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted May 1, 2012
Appeal from Aiken County James D. Bailey, Special Referee
Tucker S. Player, of Columbia, for Appellant.
William R. Ferrara, pro se, of Aiken.
PER CURIAM
Cynthia Purcell appeals the order of the special referee denying her injunctive relief, arguing the order is inconsistent and not supported by the evidence presented at trial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Interkal, Inc., 348 S.C. 446, 450, 559 S.E.2d 866, 868 (Ct. App. 2002) ("In actions in equity referred to a special referee with finality, the appellate court may view the evidence to determine the facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, though it is not required to disregard the findings of the special referee."); Shaw v. Coleman, 373 S.C. 485, 496, 645 S.E.2d 252, 258 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The traditional concept of a nuisance requires a landowner to demonstrate that the defendant unreasonably interfered with his ownership or possession of the land." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); LeFurgy v. Long Cove Club Owners Ass'n, 313 S.C. 555, 558, 443 S.E.2d 577, 578 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The remedy of injunction is a drastic one and should be cautiously applied only when legal rights are unlawfully invaded or legal duties are willfully or wantonly neglected.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C. J, and HUFF and SHORT, JJ, concur