Robert A. Bernstein, of Charleston, for Appellants. Christopher David Lizzi, of North Charleston, for Respondent Brian William Robinson a/k/a Brian W. Robinson. Thomas H. Brush, of Charleston, for Respondent American General Financial Services. Maureen Ann Robinson, of Summerville, pro se.

Appellants appeal from the master in equity's order dismissing their action seeking to have respondents' transfer of an interest in real estate declared void as a fraudulent transfer in violation of the Statute of Elizabeth, S.C.Code Ann. Section 27-23-10 (Supp. 2005).

Randall Scott Hiller, of Greenville, for Appellants. Louis H. Lang, of Columbia, for Respondent Investors Title Insurance Company. V. Clark Price, of Greenville, Benjamin A. Johnson, of Rock Hill, for Respondent Crescent Resources, LLC. Warren C. Powell, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent CBS Surveying and Mapping, Inc.

In this civil action, the court analyzes the efficacy of warranty language in a deed as juxtaposed to an exclusion relating to a current and accurate survey involving easements, covenants, and rights of way of public roads. Additionally, Appellants were paid for the value of the actual width of the right of way not encompassed in the deed by Investors Title Insurance Company. Appellants aver error in the granting of summary judgment to Investors Title Insurance Company contending the title exception of "such state of facts as would be disclosed by a current and accurate survey" is not defensive.

Jason M. Bobertz and Louis H. Lang, of Columbia, for Appellant Investors Title Insurance Company. V. Clark Price, of Greenville; Benjamin A. Johnson and Stephen M. Cox, of Rock Hill, for Respondent Crescent Resources, LLC.

In this civil action, the Circuit Judge granted summary judgment in regard to the claims of Investors Title Insurance Company against Crescent Resources, LLC. The issues on appeal are: (1) The Circuit Court erred in concluding the "exceptions and exclusions" in the Crescent Deed precluded deed warranty liability on the part of Crescent; (2) The Circuit Court erred in ruling that the "exceptions and exclusions" in the Crescent Deed precluded deed warranty liability because the habendum clause could not reduce the effect of the granting clause; (3) The Circuit Court erred in failing to conclude there was an ambiguity in the Crescent Deed in regard to the limited warrant.

Kevin H. Sitnik, of Columbia, for Appellants. Kay Gaffney Crowe, for Respondent.

The circuit court dismissed this medical malpractice action against a deceased physician's estate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP, motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, this court is asked to determine if the circuit court erred in finding the probate court has exclusive original subject matter jurisdiction over claims against a decedent's estate.

Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant-Respondent. Timothy E. Madden,of Greenville, for Respondent-Appellant. Robin B. Stilwell, of Greenville, Guardian Ad Litem.

In this family court litigation, the cross-appeals present multitudinous issues. Wife alleges error in regard to the family court's rulings (1) awarding Husband part of Wife's future assets; (2) classifying all of Wife's jewelry as marital property; and (3) issuing the Supplemental Order dated September 29, 2004. Husband avers the family court erred in (1) imputing income to the Husband where the record fails to show underemployment is voluntary; (2) its division of marital assets; (3) its calculation of child support; and (4) awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $50,000 where Wife has a substantial estate and income, Husband was unemployed and had already been forced to invade assets.

William Henry Thomas, of Greenville, for Appellants. Russell W. Harter, Jr., of Greenville, for Respondents.

In this civil action, Hackworth seeks recovery of $152,016 seized by the Greenville County Sheriff's Department. Hackworth argues the trial court incorrectly interpreted the requirements of the civil forfeiture statute. Greenville County defends its position based on the statute of limitations, accord and satisfaction, and the equitable doctrines of laches and unclean hands.

Andrew C. Barr, of Greenville, for Appellant. Ellis M. Johnston, of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this declaratory judgment action, Wilson appeals from the trial court's order declaring that the automobile insurance policy issued to a corporation owned by Wilson's husband did not provide UIM coverage for a personal vehicle owned by the husband but listed on the policy.

Desa Ballard and Jason B. Buffkin, of West Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, of Columbia, and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

Dorian J. Cain appeals from his conviction of armed robbery, arguing (1) the showup at which the victims identified him was unduly suggestive; (2) the police lacked probable cause to pull over the vehicle in which he was a passenger; and (3) the trial court should have granted a new trial based on an affidavit of one victim recanting his identification of Cain as the perpetrator.

William C. Cleveland and Thomas P. Guerard, of Charleston, for Appellant. Robert L. Widener and Jane W. Trinkley, of Columbia, and Mark P. Henriques, of Charlotte, NC, for Respondent Affinity Technology Group, Inc. Jacquelyn Lee Bartley, of Columbia, for Respondent Jeff Norris.

Questions whether Ligon is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial nisi additur because, it is alleged, the verdict does not correspond with the evidence of damages.

Timothy G. Quinn, of Columbia, for Appellant. Jean Perrin Derrick, of Lexington, for Respondent.

Father appeals from an order of the family court requiring him to pay child support so that his daughter, who is in college, can maintain her vehicle. He also appeals from the family court's determination that he is responsible for the pro rata share of his daughter's student loan and for $800 in Mother's attorney's fees.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Daniel E. Grigg, of Columbia, for Respondent.

In this PCR action, Marlar appeals the PCR court's denial of his application, arguing: (1) the court's order did not contain specific findings of fact as to all the issues raised in the application; and (2) Marlar was entitled to post-conviction relief because his trial counsel failed to introduce exculpatory hair evidence.

Karl Stephen Brehmer, of Columbia, for Appellant. Eric Holcombe Philpot,of Greenville, for Respondent.

In this action to recover underinsured motorist coverage, South Carolina Farm Bureau appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Kennedy. South Carolina Farm Bureau argues there are issues of material fact surrounding the circumstances of the accident, specifically whether Kennedy was pinned against his car during the accident. South Carolina Farm Bureau further argues Kennedy would not be covered by the liability policy even if he had been pinned.

Matthew A. Henderson and Joshua M. Henderson, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.. Julie Jeffords Moose, of Florence, for Respondent.

This case involves a Physician Relocation Agreement entered into between the parties pursuant to which Respondent advanced cash collections and an office loan to Appellant's practice and agreed to forgive 1/24th of the amount for each month. Appellant remained in practice in Spartanburg County. The trial court granted summary judgment to Respondent and determined Respondent was entitled to judgment, in part, of $279,633.70. Appellant contends the trial court erred in (1) granting Respondent summary judgement because genuine issues of fact exist regarding Appellant's claims of estoppel and waiver and (2) even if the trial court properly granted summary judgement, the court erred in calculating the amount of $279,633.70 due under the agreement as the calculation only took into consideration partial forgiveness of principal, but not interest.

Christopher M. Holmes, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants. Leslie S. Riley, of Charleston, for Respondent.

Appellants, Samuel Brownlee and Richard Jolly, brought this action against the Respondent, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)after it denied their applications for construction permits for the extenion of two private docks on Johns Island. Upon appeal, the administrative law judge ordered the permits to be issued. Upon further review, the Coastal Zone Management Appellate Panel reinstated the denial of the permits, which was affirmed by the circuit court. Appellants again appeal, arguing the circuit court erred in failing to reverse the Panel for (1) engaging in independent fact finding, (2) improperly classifying their dispute with the administrative law judge's findings as a challenge involving legal error, and (3) violating their equal protection rights because other similarly situated persons have been granted the relief Appellants seek.

Thomas Carl Cofield, of Lexington, for Appellants. Charles E. Carpenter and Carmen V. Ganjehsani, of Columbia, for Appellants. Dan R. Denton, of Beaufort, for Respondent. David Holt Berry, of Hilton Head Island, for Respondent. Henry E. Grimball, of Charleston, for Respondent.

R.R. Hilton Head II, Inc. and Charter Oak Group, LTD appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Margaret O'Leary Payne as a result of her trip and fall over a grounding pipe. Appellants argue the trial court should have directed a verdict in their favor because Respondent failed to carry her burden of proving the grounding pipe was dangerous or defective or that Appellants had knowledge the pipe was dangerous. Appellants also argue the trial court erred in striking their defense of assumption of the risk and erred in refusing to allow Appellants to argue third party negligence in their closing argument.

Patrick F. Stringer, of Charleston, for Appellant. Anne Frances Bleecker, of Charleston, for Respondent.

In this family court action, Appellant contends the court erred in (1) reducing Respondent's alimony obligation to zero after finding she cohabitated with a man on a continuous and romantic basis; (2) requiring repayment of alimony paid by Respondent from the filing of the complaint through the date of the final order, and (3) requiring Appellant to pay $15,000 in Respondent's attorney's fees.