From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jernigan v. Katz

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Oct 15, 2014
2014-MO-039 (S.C. Oct. 15, 2014)

Opinion

2014-MO-039

10-15-2014

Floyd E. Jernigan, Respondent, v. Suzanne Boone Katz and Bank of America, Defendants, of whom Suzanne Boone Katz is Respondent, and Bank of America is Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012-210729

Merritt Gordon Abney and Bryson Moore Geer, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Charleston, for Appellant. Geoffrey H. Waggoner, of Waggoner Law Firm, Brooks Roberts Fudenberg, of Law Office of Brooks R. Fudenberg and Aaron Eric Edwards, of The Richter Firm, LLC, all of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard February 20, 2014

Appeal From Charleston County J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Merritt Gordon Abney and Bryson Moore Geer, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Geoffrey H. Waggoner, of Waggoner Law Firm, Brooks Roberts Fudenberg, of Law Office of Brooks R. Fudenberg and Aaron Eric Edwards, of The Richter Firm, LLC, all of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Longshore v. Saber Sec. Servs., Inc., 365 S.C. 554, 560, 619 S.E.2d 5, 9 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating a tort action for damages is an action at law); see also Moseley v. All Things Possible, Inc., 395 S.C. 492, 495, 719 S.E.2d 656, 658 (2011) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact will not be disturbed if there is any evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings. The judge's findings in such an instance are equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action. Our scope of review extends merely to the correction of errors of law." (citations omitted)); Mellen v. Lane, 377 S.C. 261, 275, 659 S.E.2d 236, 244 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating a trial judge has "considerable discretion" in fashioning a damages award); Hutson v. Cummins Carolinas, Inc., 280 S.C. 552, 559, 314 S.E.2d 19, 24 (Ct. App. 1984) ("[O]ur task in reviewing a damages award is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine if there is any evidence to support the [] verdict . . . . Mere undue liberality . . . does not warrant the inference that the verdict was the result of caprice, passion or other undue influence." (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

PLEICONES, Acting Chief Justice, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James E.Moore, concur


Summaries of

Jernigan v. Katz

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Oct 15, 2014
2014-MO-039 (S.C. Oct. 15, 2014)
Case details for

Jernigan v. Katz

Case Details

Full title:Floyd E. Jernigan, Respondent, v. Suzanne Boone Katz and Bank of America…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 15, 2014

Citations

2014-MO-039 (S.C. Oct. 15, 2014)