Court Opinion

ID: 9595418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:40:19.499306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:01.684494
License: Public Domain

STILWELL, J.
(concurring in result only):
Although I agree with the result of this case, I write separately to explain my reasoning, which differs from both the majority opinion and Judge Anderson’s opinion concurring in result only.
The critical issue is whether Williamsburg Water’s notice to the county and the county’s action or inaction thereafter vested Williamsburg Water with the exclusive right to provide water service in the subject area or a non-exclusive right to provide such service. The trial court’s order holding Williams-burg Water’s authority to be non-exclusive came as a result of rather generic mutual motions for summary judgment, neither of which focused on the issue of whether the rights obtained were exclusive or non-exclusive. There may well be a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the statute, Williamsburg Water’s notice, and Williamsburg County’s response or lack thereof creates exclusive or non-exclusive rights.
However, the status of this appeal is such that we are not able to address that issue. The question presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to find that Williams-burg Water had exclusive right and authority to serve within the specified area and Williamsburg Water’s arguments all focus on its contention that it is so entitled. Thus, the issue as *280presented is the functional equivalent of an appeal of the refusal to grant summary judgment, an issue that is not appealable. Ballenger v. Bowen, 313 S.C. 476, 443 S.E.2d 379 (1994); Olson v. Faculty House of Carolina, 354 S.C. 161, 580 S.E.2d 440 (2003).
Nowhere in Williamsburg Water’s brief do I find an assertion that the court erred in ruling that Williamsburg Water’s rights were non-exclusive. Because that finding was not appealed, it is the law of the case and not subject to review by this court. ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, LP, v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997).
For that reason alone, I would affirm the trial court’s ruling.
CONNOR, J., concurs.