Ford v. Georgetown County Water and Sewer

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Joseph R. Ford, Appellant, v. Georgetown County Water and Sewer District, a Special Purpose District Respondent. Appeal From Georgetown County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Master in Equity Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-131 Submitted December 23, 2004 – Filed February 26, 2004 AFFIRMED Gilbert Scott Bagnell, of Columbia, for Appellant. Mary J. Murray, and James J. Hinchey, both of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: As to Issue I: ML-Lee Acquisition Fund v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) (holding an unappealed ruling by a master in equity becomes the law of the case); see Garris v. McDuffie, 288 S.C. 637, 642, 344 S.E.2d 186, 189 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding the issue of contempt of court will be dismissed as moot by an appellate court where a jail sentence is imposed for contempt and such sentence has been served at the time of appeal); Chappell v. Chappell, 282 S.C. 376, 377, 318 S.E.2d 590, 591 (Ct. App. 1984) (“The payment of a fine imposed in contempt proceedings also waives the right of review.”). As to Issue II: ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, 327 S.C. at 241, 489 S.E.2d at 472 (holding an unappealed ruling by a master in equity becomes the law of the case). AFFIRMED. GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.