Livingston v. Danube Valley Exports

THIS OPININON HAS NO
PRECEDENTAL 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

Elizabeth Livingston, Respondent,

v.

Danube Valley Exports,
LLC, Vicki W. Smith, and William Smith, Appellants.

Appeal
From Charleston County

Kristi
Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished
Opinion No. 2012-UP-037

Heard
December 5, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012

DISMISSED

Rolf
Mouin Baghdady, of Chapin, for Appellants.

Timothy
James Wood Muller, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Danube Valley
Exports, LLC, Vicki W. Smith, and William Smith (collectively Danube Valley)
appeal  the circuit court's order requiring Danube Valley to vacate its leased
premises and pay past due rent to the owner of the leased premises, Elizabeth
Livingston (Livingston).  Danube Valley claims the circuit court erroneously
applied an ejectment statute when it ordered vacation of the premises and
payment of rent because Danube Valley never objected to vacating the premises,
only to the amount of rent due. 

Because Danube Valley conceded during
oral arguments the circuit court's order is interlocutory, we dismiss pursuant
to the following authorities:  Edwards v. SunCom, 369 S.C. 91, 94, 631
S.E.2d 529, 530 (2006) ("An order which involves the merits is one that
'must finally determine some substantial matter forming the whole or part of
some cause of action or defense.'") (internal citation omitted); Brown
v. Cnty. of Berkeley, 366 S.C. 354, 361, 622 S.E.2d 533, 537 (2005) ("It
is well settled that an interlocutory order is not immediately appealable
unless it involves the merits of the case or affects a substantial right.")
(internal citation omitted); Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 13, 625 S.E.2d
205, 208 (2005) ("[Interlocutory] orders affecting a substantial right, 'discontinue
an action, prevent an appeal, grant or refuse a new trial or strike out an
action or defense.'") (internal citation omitted); Bowaters
Carolina Corp. v. Carolina Pipeline Co., 259 S.C. 500, 505, 193 S.E.2d 129, 132
(1972) (holding an appellate court need not pursue an issue conceded during
oral arguments); Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138, 564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App.
2002) ("[A]n order which does not put a final end to the case, nor establish
any principle which will finally effect the merits of the case, nor deprive the
party of any benefit which he may have at a final hearing, ought to be
considered an interlocutory order, from which no appeal ought to be allowed.")
(internal citation omitted).

DISMISSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ.,
concur.