Greene-Mackey v. Bevins
Decision Date | 07 July 2021 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-256,Appellate Case No. 2018-001372 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Mary Greene-Mackey, Appellant, v. David Bevins, Respondent. |
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 Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Eduardo Kelvin Curry, of The Curry Law Firm LLC, of North Charleston, for Appellant.
Marvin I. Oberman and Harold Alan Oberman, both of Oberman & Oberman, of Charleston, for Respondent.
Mary Greene-Mackey brought an action against her neighbor David Bevins to determine the boundary line between their properties. Greene-Mackey appeals the circuit court's order determining the boundary line and awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Bevins. We affirm.
1. We find Greene-Mackey's assertion that the circuit court erred in relying on Bevins's surveys when determining the location of the boundary line between the properties is unpreserved for appellate review. At the hearing, Greene-Mackey did not object to the admission of Bevins's surveys. Therefore, she waived any challenge to the circuit court's admission and consideration of Bevins's surveys. See State ex rel. Wilson v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 414 S.C. 33, 59, 777 S.E.2d 176, 190 (2015) ( ); Webb v. CSX Transp., Inc., 364 S.C. 639, 655, 615 S.E.2d 440, 449 (2005) ( ).
2. We find there is evidence in the record to support the circuit court's award of damages to Bevins. Based on the circuit court's finding regarding the location of the boundary line, it ruled Greene-Mackey intentionally trespassed on Bevins's property when she removed the trees located on his property. Greene-Mackey admitted she intentionally removed the trees, knowing the boundary dispute had not been settled. Further, she admitted the workmen damaged Bevins's fence while removing the trees. Thus, we find the circuit court did not err in awarding Bevins compensatory and punitive damages as a result of Greene-Mackey's trespass. See Snow v. City of Columbia, 305 S.C. 544, 553, 409 S.E.2d 797, 802 (Ct. App. 1991) ; Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 378-79, 529 S.E.2d 528, 533 (2000) (); id. at 378, 529 S.E.2d at 533 ().1
Moreover, we find Greene-Mackey's challenge to the award of attorney's fees unpersuasive. Unlike a typical award of attorney's fees, the circuit court awarded Bevins attorney's fees as part of his compensatory damages, which is within the court's discretion. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-100 (2005) ( ); see also Hegler v. Gulf Ins. Co., 270 S.C. 548, 549-51, 243 S.E.2d 443, 444 (1978) ( ). Additionally, Bevins testified that at the time of trial, he had already paid $6,500 in attorney's fees and still had a remaining balance of approximately $11,000. Thus, the circuit court's award of $14,500 in attorney's fees as compensatory damages was within the range of damages testified to by Bevins. See Gauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co., 380 S.C. 548, 559, 671 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ct. App. 2008) (); see also Gastineau v. Murphy, 323 S.C. 168, 183, 473 S.E.2d 819, 828 (Ct. App. 1996) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial