Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-334 - Anderson County Aviation v. Anderson County Auditor

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

Anderson County Aviation, Inc. and J. Reid Garrison, Appellants,

v.

Anderson County Auditor, Respondent.


Appeal From Richland County
 Ralph K. Anderson, III, Administrative Law Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-334
Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed July 1, 2008 


AFFIRMED


Burnet R. Maybank, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

D. Michael Henthorne, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Anderson Aviation, Inc. and J. Reid Garrison appeal the Anderson County Auditor’s assessment of ad valorem personal property taxes on three aircraft alleged to be owned by Anderson Aviation for the tax years 2003 through 2005.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Unisys Corp. v. S.C. Budget & Control Bd. Div. of Gen. Servs. Info. Tech. Mgmt. Office, 346 S.C. 158, 174, 551 S.E.2d 263, 272 (2001) (“An adequate de novo review renders harmless a procedural due process violation based on the insufficiency of the lower administrative body.”); Frame v. Resort Servs. Inc., 357 S.C. 520, 531, 593 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2004) (“When an administrative agency acts without first making the proper factual findings required by law, the proper procedure is to remand the case and allow the agency the opportunity to make those findings.”); Fields v. Monroe Ltd. P’ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993) (“An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.”); Matthews v. City of Greenwood, 305 S.C. 267, 270, 407 S.E.2d 668, 699 (Ct. App. 1991) (noting an issue is deemed abandoned on appeal if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without argument or supporting authority); McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4, 362 S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App. 1987) (“[W]hatever doesn’t make any difference, doesn’t matter.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2910(C)(5) (2000) (An auditor must “inform the taxpayer of his right to request a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.”).

AFFIRMED.

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


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