Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-344 - Miller v. Point Arcadia Horizontal Property Regime

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

W. Thomas Miller, Appellant,

v.

Point Arcadia Horizontal Property Regime, Inc., Mr. Bill Lucas, President of Board of Directors, Sandra Levy, Vice President, Respondents.


Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-344
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 22, 2009 


Affirmed


W. Thomas Miller, of Columbia, pro se, for Appellant.

Evans T. Barnette, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: W. Thomas Miller appeals the trial court's award of reasonable costs incurred by Point Arcadia Horizontal Property Regime, Inc., and Dianne Fleming[1] in obtaining an order compelling discovery due to Miller's refusal to answer any questions posed by Point Arcadia's attorney during his deposition.  Miller argues no evidence supports the imposition of such sanctions.  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Barnette v. Adams Bros. Logging, Inc., 355 S.C. 588, 593, 586 S.E.2d 572, 575 (2003) (finding an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's imposition of sanctions "absent a clear abuse of discretion"); Id. (finding the party seeking to overturn the sanction bears the burden of demonstrating the trial court abused its discretion).  

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] We note Miller initiated similar actions against both Point Arcadia and Fleming individually.  The trial court consolidated the cases for discovery and trial, but issued two orders awarding costs.  Miller filed this appeal and also appealed the order awarding costs to Fleming (W. Thomas Miller. v. Dianne Fleming, Op. No. 2009-UP-343 (S.C. Ct. App. Filed June 22, 2009)).  However, Point Arcadia and Fleming concede they are entitled to one award of costs.

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