Capital Bank, N.A. v. Moore
Decision Date | 18 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-152,Appellate Case No. 2013-001516 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Capital Bank, N.A., Respondent, v. Charles A. Moore a/k/a Charles A. B. Moore, Appellant. |
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.
Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
John R. Cantrell, Jr., of Cantrell Legal, PC, of Goose Creek, for Appellant.
Robert A. Kerr, Jr., Christopher Tradd Colwell, and Lesley Anne Firestone, all of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.
Charles A. Moore appeals the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to Capital Bank, N.A. (Capital Bank) in its collection action against Moore, arguing the trial court erred by (1) basing its ruling on incompetentand inadmissible evidence and (2) granting summary judgment before Moore had a full and fair opportunity to complete discovery. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to issue one, we find the affidavit submitted in support of Capital Bank's summary judgment motion sufficiently demonstrated the affiant's personal knowledge; the trial court did not err in considering the affidavit and its attached exhibits; and this evidence was sufficient to support a grant of partial summary judgment regarding Moore's liability. See Busillo v. City of N. Charleston, 404 S.C. 604, 610, 745 S.E.2d 142, 146 (Ct. App. 2013) (); Rule 56(e), SCRCP () ; Englert, Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 315 S.C. 300, 304, 433 S.E.2d 871, 874 (Ct. App. 1993) ( ); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 219, 746 S.E.2d 478, 480 (Ct. App. 2013) (); Sides v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 250, 255, 607 S.E.2d 362, 364 (Ct. App. 2004) (); Jackson v. Bermuda Sands, Inc., 383 S.C. 11, 17, 677 S.E.2d 612, 616 (Ct. App. 2009) ().
2. As to issue two, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to the completion of discovery because the record does not demonstrate that further discovery would have contributed to the resolution of the issue of Moore's liability. See Bayle v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 128, 542 S.E.2d 736, 742 (Ct. App. 2001) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial