Graham v. Babb

Full title: Carey E. Graham and Rodney A. Chardukian, Respondents, v. Malcom M. Babb…

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Feb 29, 2012

2012-UP-130 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-130

02-29-2012

Carey E. Graham and Rodney A. Chardukian, Respondents, v. Malcom M. Babb, Brenda R. Babb, Cable Plus of Carolina, Inc., South Bay Lakes Cable Partnership, Southbridge Cable Television, LLC, and Renaissance Enterprises, Inc., now known as Condo Services, Inc., Defendants, Of Whom Brenda R. Babb and Renaissance Enterprises, Inc., now known as Condo Services, Inc., are Appellants.

Brenda R. Babb, pro se, of Calabash, N.C. ; and William I. Diggs, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants. Frank H. DuRant, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted February 1, 2012

Appeal From Horry County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Brenda R. Babb, pro se, of Calabash, N.C. ; and William I. Diggs, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants.

Frank H. DuRant, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM

Brenda R. Babb and Condo Services, Inc. appeal the circuit court's order appointing a receiver, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion in authorizing powers of the receiver that exceeded the scope of the relief requested. ¹ We affirm, ² finding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the receiver the power to sell the parties' franchise rights if necessary to preserve sufficient assets to cover a judgment. See Midlands Util., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 301 S.C. 224, 228, 391 S.E.2d 535, 538 (1989) (holding that the appointment of a receiver is within the discretion of the circuit court); 65 Am. Jur. 2d Receivers § 6 (2011) ("[A] receiver's primary purpose is to preserve the property's value for those to whom it is ultimately determined that the property belongs so to accommodate all claims possible."); id. § 9 ("The drastic remedy... is to be invoked only where necessary for the protection of the parties and upon a clear showing of a danger of irreparable loss.").

1 We note the appellants do not challenge the circuit court's appointment of the receiver.

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

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.