Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-233 - Jarmuth v. The International Club Homeowners Association

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

Ronald Jarmuth, Appellant,

v.

The International Club Homeowners Association, Inc., Rosemary Toth, Henrietta Golding, and K.A. Diehl & Associates, Respondents.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-233
Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 19, 2011


AFFIRMED


Ronald Jarmuth, pro se, of Murrells Inlet, for Appellant.

Robert E. Stepp, of Columbia and Henrietta U. Golding of Myrtle Beach, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Ronald Jarmuth appeals a trial court's dismissal of his action against Henrietta Golding arising out of her representation of Rosemary Toth and The International Club Homeowners Association, Inc. (the Association) for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.  Specifically, he contends the trial court erred in holding Golding's conduct fell within attorney immunity.  He also maintains the trial court erred in considering matters not properly introduced by the parties.  Among those matters were portions of legal authorities not specifically raised during the dismissal hearing, allegations that Golding owed an independent duty to Jarmuth, and the motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support of that motion.  Even if those matters were properly before the trial court, Jarmuth asserts they transformed the dismissal hearing into a summary judgment hearing.  Lastly, he argues the trial court erred in issuing an order that dismissed his actions against Toth, the Association, and K.A. Diehl & Associates (Diehl).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR ("The Court of Appeals need not address a point which is manifestly without merit.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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