THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDEN TIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRE CEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Patricia E. King and Robbie King Jones, individually and as personal representatives of the estates of W.R. King and Ellen King, Plaintiffs,

Of Whom Patricia E. King is the Petitioner,

v.

Margie B. King and Robbie Patricia Ione King, individually and as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Christopher C. King, deceased and Nelson M. King, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001171

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT O F APPEALS

Appeal from Chester County

James C. Harrison Jr., Special Referee

Opinion No. 2019-MO-023 Submitted January 15, 2019 – Filed May 8, 2019

REVERSED

Kenneth B. Wingate and Paul David Kent, both of Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, P.A., of Columbia, for Petitioner.Margie B. King, Robbie Patricia Ione King, and Nelson

M. King, all of Rock Hill, pro se.

PER CURIAM: A special referee granted the proprietors of an unincorporated

funeral home business the exclus ive right to use the "King" fam ily name for the operation of the business. The order specifically required Pet itioner Patricia King,

also a member of the family, to "cease" using the name for her funeral home business. Patricia appealed on the ground this relief was impr oper, and the court of appeals affirmed. We reverse th e court of appeals and vacate t he portion of the special referee's order granting the exclusive use of the famil y name.

W.R. King and his wife Ellen King purchased a funeral home at l east as early as the 1940s and began operating it as " King's Funeral Home" on Cemete ry Street in the City of Chester. When W.R. Ki ng died in 1975 without a will, h is and Ellen's numerous children—particularly the ir son Christopher King—conti nued operating

the business. At one t ime or another, each of W.R. and Ellen's children—including their daughters Patricia King a nd Robbie King Jones—worked in the funeral home. Ellen King died without a will in 1987, and Christopher King di ed without a will in 1997. Several of the remaining King children then had multiple disagreements, and at least one member of the family opened another funeral home u nder the "King"

name.

In 1998, Patricia and Robbie 1 filed this lawsuit over issues relating directly and indirectly to the operation of the family funeral home business . They alleged thirteen separate theories of recovery. The defendants (Respondents)—Ch ristopher King's

wife and two of his children—counterclaimed on sixteen theories of recovery. Patricia and Robbie's complaint was dismissed in 2004 for failu re to prosecute. After two trials and two appeals, 2 the special referee issued a final order in which the

referee denied all the counterclaims Respondents asserted excep t for unjust enrichment. The referee did not award money damages. Instead, after

1 We use the name "Robbie" to refer to W.R. King's daughter Robb ie King Jones. Christopher's daughter Robbie Pa tricia Ione King is one of the Respondents.

2 See King ex rel. King v. King , Op. No. 2012-UP-365 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 20, 2012); King v. King , Op. No. 2007-UP-132 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Mar. 28, 2007).acknowledging "[Respondents] hav e not specifically requested" t his relief, the referee granted Respondents the exclusive use of the family nam e.

Patricia appealed to the court of appeals claiming on several g rounds "the relief granted is improper." Respondents did not file a brief. The c ourt of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion. King v. King , Op. No. 2018-UP-128 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Mar. 21, 2018). Patricia King filed a petition for a writ of c ertiorari, again claiming on several grounds "the relief gr anted is improper." Respondents did not file a return. We granted the petition . Respondents did not file a b rief with this Court.

The Rules of Civil Procedure give trial courts flexibility to grant relief not specifically pled. See, e.g. , Rule 15(b), SCRCP ("When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings."); Rule 54(c), SCRCP ("[E]very final judgment shall grant the relief to which the pa rty in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such r elief in his pleadings."). However, the special master should not have gran ted relief that Respondents did not request, and neither party ever envisioned. We reverse the court of appeals and vacate the portion of the special referee's orde r granting the exclusive use of the "King" family name.

REVERSED; SPECIAL REFEREE' S ORDER VACATED IN PART.

HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., conc ur. BEATTY, C.J., concurring in result only. KITTREDGE, J., not participating.