Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-130 - Graham v. Babb

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

Carey E. Graham and Rodney A. Chardukian, Respondents,

v.

Malcom M. Babb, Brenda R. Babb, Cable Plus of Carolina, Inc., South Bay Lakes Cable Partnership, Southbridge Cable Television, LLC, and Renaissance Enterprises, Inc., now known as Condo Services, Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom Brenda R. Babb and Renaissance Enterprises, Inc., now known as Condo Services, Inc., are Appellants.


 

Appeal From Horry County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-130
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 29, 2012


AFFIRMED


Brenda R. Babb, pro se, of Calabash, N.C.; and William I. Diggs, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants.

Frank H. DuRant, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Brenda R. Babb and Condo Services, Inc. appeal the circuit court's order appointing a receiver, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion in authorizing powers of the receiver that exceeded the scope of the relief requested.[1]  We affirm,[2] finding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the receiver the power to sell the parties' franchise rights if necessary to preserve sufficient assets to cover a judgment.  See Midlands Util., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 301 S.C. 224, 228, 391 S.E.2d 535, 538 (1989) (holding that the appointment of a receiver is within the discretion of the circuit court); 65 Am. Jur. 2d Receivers § 6 (2011) ("[A] receiver's primary purpose is to preserve the property's value for those to whom it is ultimately determined that the property belongs so to accommodate all claims possible."); id. § 9 ("The drastic remedy . . . is to be invoked only where necessary for the protection of the parties and upon a clear showing of a danger of irreparable loss.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.


[1] We note the appellants do not challenge the circuit court's appointment of the receiver.

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