Curry v. Town of Atlantic Beach, 2017-UP-312
Decision Date | 26 July 2017 |
Docket Number | 2017-UP-312 |
Parties | Paul Curry, Appellant, v. Town of Atlantic Beach, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2015-001398 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
Submitted June 1, 2017
Appeal From Horry County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Randall K. Mullins and Jarrod Elliott Ownbey, both of Mullins Law Firm, PA, of North Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.
Adrianne LaVonne Turner, of Turner Law, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Paul Curry appeals the trial court's order denying declaratory and injunctive relief against the Town of Atlantic Beach (the Town) on the grounds his claims were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and did not present a justiciable case or controversy. On appeal, Curry argues the trial court erred by (1) holding his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (2) determining his claims regarding the codification and indexing of the Town's ordinances failed to present a justiciable controversy, (3) failing to award him attorney's fees, and (4) denying his motion to exclude the Town's trial witnesses. We affirm.[1]
1. The issue of whether collateral estoppel bars Curry's claims is not preserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) () . Although Curry filed a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, he sought only clarification regarding which previous court order triggered the trial court's collateral estoppel ruling. Curry did not challenge the merits and application of the ruling. See In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) (); Godfrey v. Heller, 311 S.C. 516, 520-21, 429 S.E.2d 859, 862 (Ct. App. 1993) ( ).
2. The trial court properly held Curry's claim regarding the codification and indexing of the Town's ordinances was not justiciable because there was no underlying case or controversy. See Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) (); id. (); id. at 26, 630 S.E.2d at 477 (); Tourism Expenditure Review Comm. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 403 S.C. 76, 81, 742 S.E.2d 371, 374 (2013) ; id. (); id. .
3. The trial court properly denied Curry's request for attorney's fees because he was not the prevailing party. See Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289, 307, 486 S.E.2d 750, 759 (1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial