Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-308 - Consolidated Tires v. Hamlett

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

Consolidated Tires, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Ken Hamlett, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-308  
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 17, 2011


REVERSED


Ken E. Hamlett, pro se, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Erin Culbertson and James Cassidy, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ken Hamlett appeals a circuit court's grant of a temporary injunction that prohibited him from occupying two houses on a tract of land owned by Consolidated Tires, Inc. (Consolidated).  Consolidated originally sought Hamlett’s ejectment because it wanted to build new corporate headquarters on the property.  Hamlett argues the circuit court erred in (1) permitting Consolidated to renew a previously denied motion for a temporary injunction; (2) granting the temporary injunction upon insufficient evidence; (3) failing to hold a jury trial for the temporary injunction; (4) failing to provide an accurate hearing transcript; (5) depriving him of due process by considering affidavits and exhibits not filed with the renewed motion; (6) advocating on behalf of Consolidated; and (7) orchestrating an unconstitutional taking of his rights to the property.  We reverse.[1]

"The grant of an injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion."  AJG Holdings, LLC v. Dunn, 382 S.C. 43, 49, 674 S.E.2d 505, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).  "An injunction is a drastic remedy . . . ."  Id. at 50, 674 S.E.2d at 508 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).  A court may issue a temporary injunction "only if necessary to preserve the status quo ante, and only upon a showing by the moving party that without such relief it will suffer irreparable harm, that it has a likelihood of success on the merits, and that there is no adequate remedy at law."  Poynter Invs., Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583, 586-87, 694 S.E.2d 15, 17 (2010). 

Here, the circuit court abused its discretion.  The temporary injunction was not necessary to preserve the status quo, and in fact, the injunction would do the opposite by removing Hamlett from the property.  Moreover, an adequate remedy at law exists because Consolidated could be awarded a monetary judgment against Hamlett if Consolidated's suit is successful.

Because we reverse on the above issue, we need not address the remaining issues.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not address remaining issues when a decision on a prior issue is dispositive).

REVERSED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


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