Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Sundown Operating Co. v. Intedge Indus., Inc., 383 S.C. 601 , 606, 681 S.E.2d 885 , 888 (2009) ("The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id. ("The trial
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Sundown Operating Co. v. Intedge Indus., Inc., 383 S.C. 601 , 606, 681 S.E.2d 885 , 888 (2009) ("The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id. ("The trial c..
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Sundown Operating Co. v. Intedge Indus., Inc., 383 S.C. 601, 606, 681 S.E.2d 885, 888 (2009) ("The decision whether to set aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id. ("The trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion."); id. at 607, 681 S.E.2d at 888 ("[A] party seeking relief from an entry of default under Rule 55(c) [must] provide an explanation for the default and give reasons why vacation of the default entry would serve the interests of justice."); Howard v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 271 S.C. 238, 241, 246 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1978) (holding a defaulting defendant's participation in a damages hearing is limited to cross-examination of witnesses and objection to evidence); Limehouse v. Hulsey, 404 S.C. 93, 116, 744 S.E.2d 566, 578-79 (2013) (adhering to the procedures adopted in Howard despite the intervening adoption of Rule 55, SCRCP).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
