Knox L. Haynsworth, III, of Greenville, for Appellant. Richard Price, Jr, of Easley, for Respondent.

Phillips Brothers Properties LLC (Phillips Brothers) appeals the order of the trial court voiding a tax sale of the property of Lee Edwards Cunningham and voiding the deed of the tax sale purchaser, Gary T. Cason, to Phillips Brothers.

John F. Beach and John J. Pringle, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant. Ashley C. Biggers, Carlisle Roberts, and Kristi L. Pawlowski, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Contol. Travis Dayhuff and Holly G. Gillespie, of Columbia, for Respondent Coastal Carolina Medical Center.

In this appeal, MRI at Belfair (Belfair) contends the Administrative Law Court (ALC) improperly construed certain statutes and regulations in concluding Coastal Carolina Medical Center's (Coastal) implemented project was not a substantial change from its original project. Additionally, Belfair contends the ALC improperly placed the burden of proof upon Belfair to establish Coastal's changes to its project were substantial and failed to find Coastal's certificate of need was voided by the transfer of Coastal's ownership to a new entity.

David Michael Collins, Jr., and J. Benjamin Stevens, of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Albert V. Smith, of Spartanburg, for Respondent Daniel C. Deborah Murdock, of Mauldin, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Social Services. Catherine C. Christophillis, of Greenville, Guardian Ad Litem. Robert A. Clark and Don J. Stevenson, of Greenville, for Respondent Guardian Ad Litem. Virginia Cravens Ravenel, of Columbia, for South Carolina Guardian ad Litem Program.

On appeal from the family court, the mother argues the family court improperly weighed the evidence in a consolidated private custody and DSS intervention action regarding the identity of the child's sexual abuser. In addition, the mother claims the family court erred in assessing attorney's fees against mother for the appointed guardian ad litem in both the private custody action and the DSS intervention action.

Thomas F. McDow and Erin U. Fitzpatrick, of Rock Hill, for Appellant. Daniel Dominic D'Agostino, of York, for Respondent.

This is an appeal of a divorce decree. Husband alleges error in the family court's findings of fact; alimony award; identification, valuation, and division of the marital property; and award of attorney's fees to Wife.

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant. Joseph M. Ramseur, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this action for divorce, Sara A. Roesler argues the family court erred in (1) finding it had subject matter jurisdiction, (2) proceeding with trial when she was not represented by counsel, (3) failing to make an inquiry or award of alimony, and (4) exempting the case from mediation.

Evan Brook Bristow, of Columbia, for Appellants. S.Jahue Moore, Jr, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

This defamation case stems from an article published in the Columbia City Paper that allegedly described Rebecca West as a "corruptible attorney" and a "two-bit lawyer" who would "even turn on [her] own clients if the retainer is juicy enough." The jury returned a verdict in favor of West for $10,000.00 in actual damages and $30,000.00 in punitive damages. On appeal, Defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and their motion for a new trial absolute.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek and Assistant Appellate Defender Kathrine Hudgins, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Melody Brown, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Aurelio Vincent Ottey appeals his conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment after a trial by jury, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) qualifying an officer as an expert in cell phone investigation; (2) refusing to allow cross-examination of a witness to show bias or motive to misrepresent pursuant to Rule 608(c), SCRE; and (3) finding evidence Ottey helped pay for the decedent's abortion inadmissible.

Robert Guild, of Columbia, for Appellants. Stephen Philip Hightower, of Columbia, for Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; Michael P. Horger, of Orangeburg, for Respondent Bolen Turkey Farm.

In this permitting case, Appellants argue the Administrative Law Court erred in ordering the Department of Health and Environmental Control issue a permit to Bolen Farm to construct and operate a new agricultural animal facility.

John S. Nichols, of Columbia, and Amy Lohr Gaffney, of Columbia, for Appellants. Karl Stephen Brehmer, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Tracy E. Widener, Stacy E. Currie, and the Estate of James Donald Epting allege the circuit court erred in denying their motion for set-off and reallocation of the proceeds of the settlement agreement between Sandra Smith and CitiStreet, LLC.

Desa Ballard, of West Columbia, for Appellant. Christopher D. Florian, of Columbia, for Respondent.

David Ray Tant appeals SCDC's change in its interpretation of his sentence from fifteen years to forty years. The Administrative Law Court affirmed SCDC's decision. On appeal, Tant argues SCDC does not have the authority to modify his sentence, doing so violates his due process rights, the sentencing sheet should control over the judge's oral pronouncement, and the transcript of the sentencing hearing should not be included in the record.

William L. Howard, Stephen L. Brown, and Russell G. Hines, of Charleston, for Appellants. C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, Jr., A. Mattison Bogan, and Michael J. Anzelmo, of Columbia, for Appellants. John P. Henry and Philip C. Thompson, of Conway, for Respondents.

Appellants, in these two construction defect actions, appeal combined verdicts totaling $5.5 million. Appellants allege the trial court erred in: (1) charging the jury in regard to negligence; (2) finding Appellants were amalgamated; (3) permitting evidence of instances of construction defects at Appellants’ other projects; (4) denying Appellants’ motion to decertify a class; (5) admitting evidence of remedial measures and expert testimony of loss of use damages; and (6) denying Appellants’ motions for directed verdicts and judgment notwithstanding the verdicts.

Assistant Appellate Defender Kathrine Hudgins, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney Gerneral Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Andre Jackson appeals his conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana arising out of a traffic stop. He argues the trial court erred in failing to exclude the stop and denying his motion for a directed verdict due to his mere presence.

C. Mitchell Brown, A. Mattison Bogan, and Michael J. Anzelmo, of Columbia, for Appellant. William S. Brown, Lane W. Davis, and Steven E. Buckingham, of Greenville, for Appellant. Keith Munson, of Greenville, and Kathy A. Wisniewski, of St. Louis, Missouri, for Respondent.

In this contract action, DynCorp International LLC (DynCorp) appeals a trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Stevens Aviation, Inc. (Stevens) on the interpretation of a contract between the parties. DynCorp argues the trial court erred in (1) granting partial summary judgment on grounds not before it; (2) incorporating a prior agreement between Stevens and DynCorp into a later agreement between them; (3) holding the later agreement was an exclusive requirements contract; and (4) ruling on these issues without permitting DynCorp to conduct further discovery.

William Norman Epps, of Anderson, for Appellant. Christopher Lance Sheek, of Greenwood, for Respondent. Adam S. Bacot, of Greenwood, for Guardian Ad Litem. Anna Padgett, of Greenwood, for Guardian Ad Litem.

Appellant Anna Brooke Moeller (Mother) seeks review of the family court's award of child custody to Respondent Marcus Moeller (Father). Mother argues that the family court placed an improper emphasis on her romantic relationship with a man other than Father because there was no evidence that this relationship had any detrimental effect on the parties' children. Mother also argues that the family court abused its discretion in separating Mother's oldest child from the parties' two younger children because the separation was against the best interests of the children.

John D. Elliott, A. Camden Lewis, and Ariail E. King, of Columbia, for Appellant. James T. McLaren, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this divorce action, Wife appeals the family court’s excluding certain portions of a real estate development from the equitable distribution by finding their appreciation in value were active instead of passive. Wife further argues the family court erred in failing to consider certain factors in determining Husband’s child support obligation and failing to order Husband pay for Child’s private school tuition. Additionally, Wife maintains the family court erred in ordering her to pay certain attorney’s fees and in failing to order she be reimbursed for delinquent mortgage payments she advanced.