Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-396 - Floyd v. Spartanburg Dodge

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

Joe Cephus Floyd, Appellant,

v.

Spartanburg Dodge, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and Daimler Chrysler Motors, LLC, Respondents.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-396
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed August 31, 2010


AFFIRMED


James J. Raman, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Laura Wilcox Howle Teer, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Joe Cephus Floyd brought suit against Spartanburg Dodge, Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and Daimler Chrysler Motors, LLC for problems arising out of his purchase of a car from Spartanburg Dodge that Bank of America financed.  Spartanburg Dodge and Bank of America both moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Floyd signed an arbitration agreement when he purchased the car.  The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss and Floyd appealed.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (providing broad general statements of issues made by an appellant may be disregarded by this court); R & G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg'l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437, 540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding an issue is abandoned if the appellant's brief treats it in a conclusory manner); Sullivan Co. v. New Swirl, Inc., 313 S.C. 34, 36, 437 S.E.2d 30, 31 (1993) (finding an issue abandoned when appellant claimed it was damaged as a result of respondent's failure to act but offered no evidence to support the claim); State v. Colf, 332 S.C. 313, 322, 504 S.E.2d 360, 364 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding a conclusory, two-paragraph argument that cited no authority other than an evidentiary rule was abandoned), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000); Englert, Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 315 S.C. 300, 304 n.2, 433 S.E.2d 871, 873 n.2 (Ct. App. 1993) (finding a one-sentence argument is too conclusory to present any issue on appeal); Carolina Water Serv., Inc. v. Lexington County Joint Mun. Water & Sewer Comm'n, 367 S.C. 141, 149, 625 S.E.2d 227, 231 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A reference to supporting authority without any discussion of [its] applicability is conclusory and constitutes an abandonment of the party's reliance on those cases."), rev'd on other grounds, 373 S.C. 96, 644 S.E.2d 681 (2007); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 157, 561 S.E.2d 640, 648 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding an argument conclusory and the issue abandoned when appellant merely argued the trial court's ruling was erroneous and prejudicial and cited an evidentiary rule); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) ("Mere allegations of error are not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.  On appeal, the burden of showing abuse of discretion is on the party challenging the trial court's ruling.").

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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