• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. Updates are presented chronologically below. To sort by Practice Area, select a Practice Area from the menu at left.

Skiba v. Gessner, 374 S.C. 208, 648 S.E.2d 605 (2007).
Opinion No. 26363, decided July 23, 2007.
Practice Areas: Mechanic's Liens

The plaintiff sought to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien after the defendant failed to pay him for lot clearing work. The trial court originally dismissed the case on the ground that a contractor’s license was required to do the work, and thus pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-370 he could not enforce the mechanic’s lien. Upon reconsideration, the trial court found that the work was merely landscaping, not preparation for construction, and therefore a license was not required. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that even if the work was landscaping and therefore a license was not required, the plaintiff was still barred from enforcing the mechanic’s lien because S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-10(a) provides that in order to enforce a mechanic’s lien, a person must perform or furnish labor or materials that are actually used in the erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure upon real estate. Because landscaping is not the “erection, alteration, or repair of a building or structure,” no mechanic’s lien could attach to the defendant’s property.

Cohen’s Drywall Co. Inc. v. Sea Spray Homes, LLC, 374 S.C. 195, 648 S.E.2d 598 (2007).
Opinion No. 26360, decided July 23, 2007.
Practice Areas: Mechanic's Liens

The plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien against the defendants’ property, but the defendants subsequently posted a cash bond to release the property from the lien. The plaintiff filed suit to enforce the bond within the six month time period required by S.C. Code Ann. § 29-5-120, naming the property as the subject of the enforcement action. When the plaintiff learned that a bond had been posted, it amended its complaint to name the bond the subject of the enforcement action. The amendment occurred outside the six month time period and the defendants moved to dismiss on that basis. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the mechanic’s lien statute did not require the amendment of the complaint and allowed the plaintiff’s suit to go forward because it was originally filed well within the required time period.

Bostic v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 375 S.C. 143, 650 S.E.2d 479 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4278, decided July 18, 2007.
Practice Areas: Collections, Real Estate

A property owner paid off a mortgage on a piece of property but never received any payoff documents. Four months after the payoff, the property owner filed suit against his mortgage company alleging breach of contract and violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 29-3-310. Section 29-3-310 requires that a mortgagee, at the request of a mortgagor who has paid off his loan, must record satisfaction of the mortgage. The penalty for noncompliance is $25,000 or half of the original mortgage loan amount, whichever is less. The South Carolina Court of Appeals held that the term “request,” as used in the statute, does not require a written request, but merely one that informs the mortgagee of the mortgagor’s desire for the satisfied mortgage to be recorded. Because the property owner merely sent a payoff check but never actually requested satisfaction to be filed, the court held that he was not entitled to statutory damages.

Gadson v. ECO Services of South Carolina, Inc., 374 S.C. 171, 648 S.E.2d 585 (2007).
Opinion No. 26357, decided July 16, 2007.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident and brought claims for negligent entrustment against the corporate owner of the car and the employee to whom it had provided the car. The plaintiff claimed that both defendants knew that the driver of the car presented an unreasonable risk to others and therefore were negligent in allowing him to drive. The South Carolina Supreme Court reiterated that our courts do not follow the Restatement of Torts with respect to negligent entrustment, but instead require the plaintiff to prove three elements in a negligent entrustment case: (1) knowledge of or knowledge imputable to the owner that the driver was either addicted to intoxicants or had the habit of drinking; (2) the owner knew or had imputable knowledge that the driver was likely to drive while intoxicated; and (3) under these circumstances, the entrustment of a vehicle by the owner to such a driver. The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence establishing the first element as to either defendant.

Three S Delaware, Inc. v. DataQuick Information Systems, Inc., 492 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2007).
Docket No. 06-1227, decided July 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution

The plaintiff submitted claims to arbitration and the defendant filed counterclaims. The plaintiff walked out of the arbitration proceedings and the arbitrator subsequently awarded the defendant $6.1 million on its counterclaims. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award because the plaintiff could not show that the award violated one of the grounds specified in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), or one of certain limited common law grounds, such as where an award fails to draw its essence from the contract or the award evidences a manifest disregard of the law.

Bradley v. Doe, 374 S.C. 622, 649 S.E.2d 153 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4274, decided July 6, 2007.
Practice Areas: Insurance Coverage

The plaintiff was driving late at night when he swerved to avoid an unknown object in the road and struck a tree, suffering injuries. He brought a “John Doe” action to collect damages under the uninsured motorist provision of his automobile insurance. Though he presented multiple witnesses and affidavits tending to show that there was a white garbage bag in the road at the time of the accident, the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that he did not satisfy the requirements of S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-170, which provides that if the accident was not caused by contact with an unknown vehicle, the plaintiff must present an affidavit from a third party witness to the accident. Because there were no third party witnesses, the plaintiff could not produce the required affidavit, and therefore the court upheld summary judgment against the plaintiff.

 

Archives
April 2009
March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009
December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008
September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008
June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008
March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008
December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007
September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007
June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007
March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007

 

Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.