Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-MO-024 - Theisen v. Theisen

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 Supreme Court


Lisbeth A. Theisen, Respondent/Appellant,

v.

Joan Theisen and Richard Doris, as personal representatives of the Estate of George I. Theisen, deceased, and Claude I. Theisen, Respondents,

v.

Clifford R. Theisen, Appellant/Respondent,

v.

Joan Theisen, Eva Marie Theisen Fox, Thomas Fox, Susan Washburn, Brian Washburn and T&S Brass and Bronze Works, Inc., Respondents.

 


Appeal From Greenville County
 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No.  2009-MO-024
Heard April 7, 2009- Filed June 1, 2009


AFFIRMED


Kymric Y. Mahnke, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, of Greenville, for Appellant-Respondent.

Joel W. Collins, Jr., Christian Stegmaier, Robert F. Goings, and Amy L. Neuschafer, all of Collins & Lacy, of Columbia; John A. Hagins, Jr. and T.S. Stern, Jr., both of Covington Patrick Hagins Stern & Lewis, of Greenville, for Respondents.

Robert C. Wilson, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent-Appellant.


PER CURIAM:  These cross-appeals arise from orders of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents against Appellant/Respondent, Clifford Theisen and Respondent/Appellant, Lisbeth Theisen.  We affirm.

We have fully considered the record and applicable law, and have reviewed all issues raised by Clifford and Lisbeth.  After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Appellants, we find the trial court properly held there was no genuine issue as to any material fact such that Respondents were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.  Rule 56(c), SCRCP.  The judgment below is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Lanham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina, Inc., 349 S.C. 356, 361, 536 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2002); Tupper v. Dorchester County, 326 S.C. 318, 325, 487 S.E.2d 187, 191 (1997).   

AFFIRMED.[1]

WALLER, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, BEATTY, PLEICONES, KITTREDGE, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.


[1]  The Court is in receipt of an Agreement to Dismiss the proceedings relating to Clifford Theisen’s claims against Respondents.  We decline to dismiss the appeal, inasmuch as the settlement was filed after the case was argued and while an opinion was circulating; the parties are nonetheless free to settle the case in accordance with Rule 261, SCACR.