Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-306 - Entec Polymers, LLC v. Stabl Corp. Inc.

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


Entec Polymers, LLC, Appellant,

v.

Stabl Corp. Inc. a/k/a Stabl Corporation, Respondent.


Appeal From Anderson County
 Ellis B. Drew, Jr., Master in Equity


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-306
Submitted May 1, 2008 – Filed June 11, 2008


DISMISSED


H. Jeff McLeod, of Anderson; for Appellant.

Carroll H. Roe, Jr., of Greenville; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Entec Polymers, LLC (Entec) appeals from the trial court’s discovery order granting Stabl Corp., Inc.’s (Stabl) motion to quash subpoenas.  We dismiss the appeal.[1]

FACTS

This is a post-judgment collection action.  Entec filed an action against Stabl and won a judgment on May 2, 2006 for $96,087.71. (R.8)  Entec moved for a supplemental hearing and provided affidavits that Stabl has assets to satisfy the judgment. (App.br.2)  Seven Products Plus, Inc. is the successor to Stabl and Bruce McClure is the “owner/contact person” for both corporations. (R.123)  Entec learned just prior to the supplemental hearing that Stabl pledged its receivables to Peoples Bank for $1.8 million. (R.21, 47, 48)  Within a day or two of the supplemental hearing, Entec subpoenaed records from Peoples Bank and Seven Products. (R.30, Resp.br.3) 

Stabl moved to quash the subpoenas. (R.30-32)  After a hearing, the court granted the motion, stating in part:  “The testimony of Mr. McClure and the records furnished at the hearing are devoid of any direct or circumstantial evidence that establishes Seven Products was responsible whatsoever for any of the open account invoices upon which [Entec] obtained judgment against Stabl or that [Stabl] has engaged in any fraudulent transfer of assets.” (R.3)  Entec appeals.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Initially, Stabl argues the order on appeal is an interlocutory order, not immediately appealable.  Entec argues the order makes a final determination of the merits of the case, thus making the order appealable under South Carolina Code section 14-3-330.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1977 & Supp. 2007) (restricting appellate review of interlocutory orders).  We find the order does not make findings on the merits.  Furthermore, Stabl concedes in its brief that Entec is not prejudiced by the order beyond “the small discovery limitations” imposed by the trial court. (Resp.br.10)  We conclude the order is not immediately appealable.  See Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 625 S.E.2d 205 (2005) (finding an order granting a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum, issued to a nonparty, is not immediately appealable). 

Accordingly, the order on appeal is

DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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