Floyd v. Spartanburg Dodge

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

Joe Cephus
Floyd, Appellant,

v.

Spartanburg Dodge,
Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and Daimler Chrysler Motors, LLC, Respondents.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-396

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed August 31,
2010

AFFIRMED

James J. Raman, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Laura Wilcox Howle Teer, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Joe Cephus Floyd brought suit against Spartanburg Dodge,
Inc., Bank of America, N.A., and Daimler Chrysler Motors, LLC for problems
arising out of his purchase of a car from Spartanburg Dodge that Bank of
America financed.  Spartanburg Dodge and Bank of America both moved for
dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because Floyd signed an arbitration agreement when he purchased
the car.  The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss and Floyd appealed. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule
208(b)(1)(B), SCACR (providing broad general statements of issues made by an
appellant may be disregarded by this court); R & G Constr., Inc. v.
Lowcountry Reg'l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437, 540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct.
App. 2000) (holding an issue is abandoned if the
appellant's brief treats it in a conclusory manner); Sullivan
Co. v. New Swirl, Inc., 313 S.C. 34, 36, 437 S.E.2d 30, 31 (1993)
(finding an issue abandoned when appellant claimed it was damaged as a result
of respondent's failure to act but offered no evidence to support the claim); State
v. Colf, 332 S.C. 313, 322, 504 S.E.2d 360, 364 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding
a conclusory, two-paragraph argument that cited no authority other than an
evidentiary rule was abandoned), aff'd as modified on other grounds, 337
S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000); Englert, Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co.,
315 S.C. 300, 304 n.2, 433 S.E.2d 871, 873 n.2 (Ct. App. 1993) (finding a
one-sentence argument is too conclusory to present any issue on appeal); Carolina Water Serv., Inc. v. Lexington County Joint Mun.
Water & Sewer Comm'n, 367 S.C. 141, 149, 625 S.E.2d 227,
231 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A reference to
supporting authority without any discussion of [its] applicability is conclusory and constitutes an
abandonment of the party's reliance on those cases."), rev'd on other grounds, 373 S.C. 96, 644 S.E.2d 681 (2007); State v. King,
349 S.C. 142, 157, 561 S.E.2d 640, 648 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding an argument conclusory
and the issue abandoned when
appellant merely argued the trial court's ruling was erroneous and prejudicial
and cited an evidentiary rule); First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314
S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) ("Mere allegations of error
are not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.  On appeal, the
burden of showing abuse of discretion is on the party challenging the trial
court's ruling.").

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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