UP-359 - Carolina Refrigeration v. Leitzsey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Carolina Refrigeration Services, Respondent, v. Claude L. Leitzsey, Sr., Claude L. Leitzsey, Jr., Lisa M. Leitzsey and Branch Banking and Trust Company, Defendants, Of Whom Claude L. Leitzsey, Sr., Claude L. Leitzsey, Jr., and Lisa M. Leitzsey are Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2013-000002 Appeal From Lexington County R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-359 Heard September 10, 2014 Filed October 15, 2014 AFFIRMED Gerald D. Jowers, of Columbia, for Appellants. Jean Perrin Derrick, of Lexington, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this appeal from the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien, Claude L. Leitzsey, Sr., Claude L. Leitzsey, Jr., and Lisa M. Leitzsey argue the circuit court erred in granting a default judgment against them pursuant to Rule 55, SCRCP, for failing to answer Carolina Refrigeration Services' summons and complaint. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Harbor Island Owners' Ass'n v. Preferred Island Props., Inc., 369 S.C. 540, 544, 633 S.E.2d 497, 499 (2006) (holding the decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the circuit court); Mitchell Supply Co. v. Gaffney, 297 S.C. 160, 163, 375 S.E.2d 321, 323 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding the circuit court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion); In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 259, 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding an abuse of discretion occurs when the judgment is controlled by some error of law or when the order, based upon factual, as distinguished from legal conclusions, is without evidentiary support). AFFIRMED. FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.