Mazloom v. Mazloom
Decision Date | 09 May 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 26972.,26972. |
Citation | 709 S.E.2d 661,392 S.C. 403 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Iraj MAZLOOM, Respondent,v.Manoochehr MAZLOOM, Albolfazl Mazloom and AMA, LLC, Petitioners. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.Appeal From Richland County, Joseph M. Strickland, Master–In–Equity.Deborah Harrison Sheffield, Law Office of Deborah Harrison Sheffield, of Columbia, and Paul L. Reeves, of Reeves Law Firm, of Columbia, for Petitioners.Tobias G. Ward, Jr. and J. Derrick Jackson, of Todd Holloway & Ward, of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM.
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals in Mazloom v. Mazloom, 382 S.C. 307, 675 S.E.2d 746 (Ct.App.2009). The writ was granted to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support a breach of fiduciary duty by Petitioners and, if so, to determine if this conduct warranted the imposition of punitive damages.
As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a breach of fiduciary duty, we find that this portion of the question is not preserved for review because it was not raised in the petition for rehearing to the court of appeals. See Rule 242(d)(2), SCACR ; Camp v. Springs Mortgage Corp., 310 S.C. 514, 516, 426 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1993) ( ); Holly Hill Lumber Co. v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 442, 43 S.E.2d 143, 144 (1947) ( ).
As to the remaining issue, we find no error on the part of the court of appeals in affirming the award of punitive damages. See Jordan v. Holt, 362 S.C. 201, 206, 608 S.E.2d 129, 131 (2005) ( ); see also Davenport v. Woodside Cotton Mills Co., 225 S.C. 52, 59, 80 S.E.2d 740, 743 (1954) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial- Lewis v. Lewis
-
Thomerson v. DeVito
...action involving piercing corporate veil); Mazloom v. Mazloom, 382 S.C. 307, 319, 675 S.E.2d 746, 752 (Ct. App. 2009), aff'd, 392 S.C. 403, 709 S.E.2d 661 (2011) (finding statute of limitations did not apply to equitable claim for corporate dissolution and ...
-
Issue Preservation
...supported by authority are deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal."). [17] See Rule 242(d)(2), SCACR; Mazloom v. Mazloom, 392 S.C. 403, 709 S.E.2d 661 (2011) (finding an issue "not preserved for review because it was not raised in the petition for rehearing to the court of ap......