Melton v. Tibbs

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Frank Melton and Mary Frances Holder, Appellants,

v.

John C. Tibbs, Respondent.

Big Oak Hunt Club and Jimmie E. Nunnery, Intervenors.

Appellate Case No. 2011-192667

Appeal From Chester County William C. Tindal, Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-515 Submitted September 4, 2012 – Filed September 12, 2012

AFFIRMED

Bruce M. Poore, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.

Randall M. Eason, of The Eason Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Coker v. Cummings, 381 S.C. 45, 53, 671 S.E.2d 383, 387 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A boundary dispute is an action at law, and the location of a disputed

boundary line is a question of fact." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the judge will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.