Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-449 - Sherald v. City of Myrtle Beach

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

Pearlie Mae Sherald, Appellant,

v.

City of Myrtle Beach, Respondent.


Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-449
Heard October 6, 2010 – Filed October 19, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Howard S. Sheftman and William R. Padget, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Michael W. Battle, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal arises from a circuit court order affirming the Myrtle Beach City Council's revocation of Pearlie Mae Sherald's business license to operate a night club in downtown Myrtle Beach.  After a thorough review of the evidence in the record, we find the City's grounds for revocation are supported by the evidence.  Accordingly, we affirm the order of the circuit court pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-10(A) (2005) ("A person who erects, establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns, occupies, leases, or releases any building or other place used for the purposes of . . . prostitution, repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances . . . in this State is guilty of a nuisance."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-40 (2005) ("[E]vidence of the general reputation of the place shall be competent for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance."); Section 11-35 of the Myrtle Beach City Code (providing, in pertinent part, for the suspension or revocation of a business license when a licensee has: (1) breached any condition upon which his license was issued or has failed to comply with the provisions of this article; (2) obtained a license through fraud, misrepresentation, a false or misleading statement, evasion, or suppression of a material fact in the license application; or (3) engaged in unlawful activity or nuisance related to the business); Amrik Singh & SBPS, Inc. v. City of Greenville, 384 S.C. 365, 370, 681 S.E.2d 921, 924 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When the city council of a municipality has acted after considering all of the facts, this court should not disturb the finding unless such action is arbitrary, unreasonable, or an obvious abuse of its discretion."); Gay v. City of Beaufort, 364 S.C. 252, 254, 612 S.E.2d 467, 468 (Ct. App. 2005) ("This court will not disturb on appeal such findings of the city council, concurred in by a circuit judge, unless they are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence.").[1] 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.


[1]  Based on our disposition herein, Sherald is not entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-77-300 (2005).