Guess v. Benebict College

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Thurmond Guess, Appellant, v. Benedict College et al, Respondent. Appeal From Richland County Joseph M. Strickland, Special Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-404 Submitted April 18, 2003 – Filed June 17, 2003 AFFIRMED Thurmond Guess, of Columbia, pro se. Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., Georgia Anna Mitchell, and S. Elizabeth Brosnan, all of Columbia, for respondent. PER CURIAM: Thurmond Guess sued Benedict College, alleging fraud and “bad faith” arising out of Guess’ failure to receive matching funds for money he deposited into a special savings account as part of a grant Benedict College received from the U.S. Department of Labor to assist non-custodial parents in becoming gainfully employed. Benedict College filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions seeking attorney fees and costs in defending the action pursuant to the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act. The judge granted both motions and awarded Benedict College $14,304.45 for attorney fees and costs. Guess filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, in which the judge denied. Guess appeals, arguing the judge erred in granting Benedict College’s motion for summary judgment and the judge abused his discretion by denying Guess’ motion to alter or amend the judgment without holding a hearing. We affirm [1] pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp. 2002), Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: I. Summary Judgment: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”); Young v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, 333 S.C. 714, 511 S.E.2d 413 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law); Vermeer Carolina’s, Inc. v. Wood/Chuck Chipper Corp., 336 S.C. 53, 518 S.E.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating that in determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences there from must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment). II. Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment: Rule 59(f), SCRCP (“The motion may in the discretion of the court be determined on briefs filed by the parties without oral argument.”); Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 553 S.E.2d 110 (2001) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law.”). AFFIRMED. CONNOR, ANDERSON, and HUFF, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.