Frontage Road Associates, Inc., v. Elephant, Inc.
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 Frontage Road Associates, Inc., also known as Frontage Road, Inc., Respondent, v. Elephant, Inc. and Gregory Gaines, also known as Kenwood Gaines, Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2019-001735 Appeal From Greenville County Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-181 Submitted April 14, 2022 – Filed April 27, 2022 AFFIRMED Robert L. Widener and Paul D. Harrill, both of Burr & Forman LLP, of Columbia, for Appellants. Oscar W. Bannister, of Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Elephant, Inc. and Gregory Gains (collectively, Tenants) appeal the circuit court's denial of their motion to transfer the case to the nonjury docket. On appeal, Tenants contend Frontage Road Associates, Inc. (Landlord) waived its right to a jury trial, and the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the motion to transfer because Landlord had not demanded a jury trial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR. Rule 38(b), SCRCP, provides a "party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand." The intent of this rule is to provide notice to other parties. We interpret Rule 38(b) as it applies to electronic filing to allow a party to demand a jury trial by choosing the jury demand option during e-filing of the complaint. At the time Landlord initiated this case within the Electronic Filing System, it selected "Yes" to the jury demand option. This selection had the effect of placing the case on the jury roster and designating the "File Type" on the case view screen as "Jury," which was visible to any e-filing participant in the case. Thus, we agree with the circuit court that Tenant was "not caught unaware of the pendency of this case as a jury trial" and therefore find the circuit court did not err by denying Tenants' motion to transfer. AFFIRMED.1 GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
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.
