Wright v. Hiester Construction

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 Supreme Court

Kenneth E. Wright and Bonnie L. Wright, Petitioners,

v.

Hiester Construction Co., Inc. and Dilia And Odin Painting Co., Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Beaufort County
Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No.  2009-MO-035
Submitted June 24, 2009 Filed June 29, 2009 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Bradford N. Martin and Laura W. H. Teer, of Bradford N. Martin & Associates, of Greenville, for Petitioners.

Jonathan  Anderson, of Anderson & Reynolds, LLC, of Charleston, and Stephen L. Brown, Duke R. Highfield, and Russell G. Hines, of Young Clement Rivers, LLP, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:   Following a verdict in respondents' favor, petitioners made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or in the alternative, a new trial.  The circuit court denied the motion.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, citing rules and case law indicating petitioners failed in their burden of providing a sufficient record to show the motion was timely made..  Wright v. Hiester, Op. No. 2008-UP-151 (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 10, 2008)        .  Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision.  Because respondents concede petitioners' motion was timely, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with further briefing and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.