Hunt v. Warder

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Ethel C. Hunt, Appellant, v. Richard H. Warder, David D. Armstrong, and W. Dennis Chamberlain, Respondents. Appeal From Greenville County G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-006 Submitted January 12, 2004 – Filed January 14, 2004 AFFIRMED Ethel C. Hunt, of Columbia, pro se. James H. Cassidy, Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, Samuel W. Outten and Langdon Cheves, III, all of Greenville, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: As to all issues: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law”); Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001) (“In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”). As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Richard Warder, David Armstrong, and Dennis Chamberlain on the statute of limitations defense: True v. Monteith, 327 S.C. 116, 119, 489 S.E.2d 615, 616 (1997) (“Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the injured party either knows or should know, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, that a cause of action exists for the wrongful conduct.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530 (Supp. 2002) (stating all actions initiated under section 15-3-530(5) must be commenced within three years after the person knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that a cause of action existed). As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Warder on the res judicata defense: Town of Sullivan’s Island v. Felger, 318 S.C. 340, 344, 457 S.E.2d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 1995) (“The doctrine [of res judicata] requires three essential elements: (1) the judgment must be final, valid and on the merits; (2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the first; and (3) the second action must involve matter properly included in the first action.”). As to the circuit court’s ruling in favor of Armstrong and Chamberlain on the res judicata defense: Id.; Pye v. Aycock, 325 S.C. 426, 432, 480 S.E.2d 455, 458 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding, in determining whether res judicata applies, the identity of the parties in the first lawsuit also includes persons in privity with the named parties); Richburg v. Baughman, 290 S.C. 431, 434, 351 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1986) (“‘Privity’ as used in the context of res judicata . . . does not embrace relationships between persons or entities, but rather it deals with a person’s relationship to the subject matter of the litigation.”). AFFIRMED. HEARN, C.J., HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.