Jarmuth v. International Club Homeowners Association, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 March 2015 |
Docket Number | 2015-UP-111 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ronald Jarmuth, Appellant, v. The International Club Homeowners Association, Inc., Rosemary Toth, and K.A. Diehl & Associates, Inc., Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2013-000714 |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted January 1, 2015
Appeal From Horry County Ralph P. Stroman, Special Referee Steven H John, Circuit Court Judge
Ronald Jarmuth, of Murrells Inlet, pro se.
Henrietta U. Golding and Alicia E. Thompson, both of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondents.
Ronald Jarmuth appeals the special referee's order dismissing his claims, awarding judgment against him, and granting injunctive relief. On appeal, Jarmuth argues: (1) the special referee denied him a fair trial; (2) the special referee did not address all of his issues; (3) the International Club Homeowners Association, Inc. (the Association) did not have any rights under the declaration of covenants and restrictions; (4) the South Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act[1]preempted the declaration of covenants and restrictions; (5) K.A. Diehl & Associates, Inc. (K.A Diehl) and the Association were liable to him for defamation and invasion of privacy; (6) Rosemary Toth and K.A. Diehl were liable to the Association for mishandling Association funds; (7) certain covenant obligations under the declaration of covenants and restrictions were voidable personal service contracts; (8) he was entitled to the approval of various modifications to his unit; (9) Pebble Creek and the Villas were not subject to the declaration of covenants and restrictions; (10) certain waivers of covenants contained within the first amendment to the declaration of covenants and restrictions were general waivers; (11) Horry County owned certain roads within the International Club community free of covenant restrictions; (12) the Association illegally withheld the voter list from him; and (13) the Association was not entitled to attorney's fees. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to Issue 1: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (); Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, L.L.C., 368 S.C. 444, 476, 629 S.E.2d 653, 670 (2006) (); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 99, 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004) ("[W]here an issue is not argued within the body of the brief but is only a short conclusory statement, it is abandoned on appeal."); Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR ().
As to Issue 2: Ellie, Inc., 358 S.C. at 99, 594 S.E.2d at 496 (); State v. Colf, 332 S.C 313, 322, 504 S.E.2d 360, 364 (Ct. App. 1998) (, )aff'd as modified, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000); Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR ().
As to Issue 3: O'Shea v. Lesser, 308 S.C. 10, 14, 416 S.E.2d 629, 631 (1992) ( ); id. ( ); McCall v. IKON, 363 S.C. 646, 652, 611 S.E.2d 315, 318 (Ct. App. 2005) ().
As to Issue 4: Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Marshland Trust, Inc., 358 S.C. 655, 661, 596 S.E.2d 380, 382-83 (Ct. App. 2004) ( ); S.C. Code Ann. § 33-31-620(a) (2006) ().
As to Issue 5: Mellen v. Lane, 377 S.C. 261, 275, 659 S.E.2d 236, 244 (Ct. App. 2008) ( ); id. ( ); Murray v. Holnam, Inc., 344 S.C. 129, 140-41, 542 S.E.2d 743, 749 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A communication made in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest or duty is qualifiedly privileged if made to a person with a corresponding interest or duty even though it contains matter which, without this privilege, would be actionable."); Snavely v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 379 S.C. 386, 396, 665 S.E.2d 222, 227 (Ct. App. 2008) ( .
As to Issue 6: Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR ("The Court of Appeals need not address a point which is manifestly without merit."); Ellie, Inc., 358 S.C. at 99, 594 S.E.2d at 496 ().
As to Issue 7: Marshland Trust, 358 S.C. at 661, 596 S.E.2d at 382-83 ( ); Seabrook Island Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Berger, 365 S.C. 234, 239, 616 S.E.2d 431, 434 (Ct. App. 2005) .
As to Issue 8: Marshland Trust, 358 S.C. at 661, 596 S.E.2d at 382-83 ( ); Berger, 365 S.C. at 239, 616 S.E.2d at 434 ; River Hills Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Amato, 326 S.C. 255, 260, 487 S.E.2d 179, 181 (1997) ( ).
As to Issue 9: Marshland Trust, 358 S.C. at 661, 596 S.E.2d at 382-83 ( ); S.C. Code Ann. § 30-7-10 (2007) (providing South Carolina is a "race-notice" state); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Shealy, 325 S.C. 351, 355, 479 S.E.2d 846, 848 (Ct. App. 1996) (); Williams v. Lawrence, 194 S.C. 1, 6, 8 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1940) ( ).
As to Issue 10: Marshland Trust, 358 S.C. at 661, 596 S.E.2d at 382-83 ( ); Kinard v. Richardson, 407 S.C. 247, 257, 754 S.E.2d 888, 893 (Ct. App. 2014) ( .
As to Issue 11: Town of Kingstree v. Chapman, 405 S.C 282, 309, 747 S.E.2d 494, 508 (Ct. App. 2013) (); Boyd v. Bellsouth Tel. Tel. Co., 369 S.C. 410, 418 n.3, 633 S.E.2d 136, 140 n.3 (2006) (the claimant "has been in possession of both the dominant and the alleged servient tenement, and while in this possession he creates the easement, . . . and he afterwards an implied easement may arise when ...
To continue reading
Request your trial