• 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.

Mid-South Mgt. Co. Inc. v. Sherwood Development Corp., 374 S.C. 588, 649 S.E.2d 135 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4271, decided June 29, 2007.
Practice Areas: Collections, Corporate Law

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against a corporation and a trial was held to determine whether the corporation’s individual officers or its parent companies should be liable for the judgment. The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that neither the individual officers nor the parent companies should be held liable. The plaintiff was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil because it did not show that the corporation had failed to observe corporate formalities or that failure to pierce would result in fundamental unfairness. The court also found that the alter ego and amalgamation of interest theories were inapplicable in this case.

Shelton v. LS & K, Inc., 374 S.C. 294, 648 S.E.2d 307 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4268, decided June 28, 2007.
Practice Areas: Premises Liability

The plaintiff was struck by a car while crossing the driveway of a fast food restaurant on a sidewalk, allegedly because a tree obstructed the view of the car’s driver. The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for the restaurant because the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony as to how the driveway and parking lot of the restaurant should have been designed and thus failed to establish the required standard of care. Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle that landowners have no duty to warn of open and obvious conditions, and because the plaintiff did not introduce any evidence showing that the tree’s placement created an unreasonably dangerous condition, she failed to meet her burden of proving the duty of care.

Pressley v. REA Const. Co., Inc., 374 S.C. 283, 648 S.E.2d 301 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4266, decided June 27, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

An employee suffered a serious injury which rendered him a paraplegic. The employer and the insurance company admitted that the injury was compensable and agreed to pay lifetime benefits. The main point of contention was whether the Workers’ Compensation Commission had the authority to order the insurance company to bear the base cost of providing the employee with a wheelchair accessible mobile home. The South Carolina Court of Appeals found that while state law permits the commission to require the insurer to pay for the increased costs of wheelchair accessible housing, it does not confer the authority to force the insurer to provide an injured employee with a mobile home.

Osterneck v. Osterneck, 374 S.C. 573, 649 S.E.2d 127 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4265, decided June 27, 2007.
Practice Areas: Probate Law

The central issue in this case was whether there was a family agreement for the decedent’s wife to disclaim her interest in a joint certificate of deposit in exchange for receiving full ownership of the marital home. The South Carolina Court of Appeals found that the greater weight of the evidence showed that such an agreement did in fact exist and that it was valid even though not in writing because it was entered into prior to the effective date of the Probate Code.

Paul L. Erickson, P.A. v. Boykin, 375 S.C. 204, 651 S.E.2d 606 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4264, decided June 27, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

A South Carolina couple hired a North Carolina attorney to represent them in legal matters in South Carolina. At the conclusion of the representation, the attorney claimed that the couple still owed him over $20,000 in legal fees and filed a collections action in North Carolina. The couple never appeared or answered the lawsuit, and judgment was entered by default. When the attorney attempted to enroll the judgment in South Carolina, the couple objected that the judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit because it was obtained without personal jurisdiction. The South Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that the attorney failed to meet his burden of proving that the foreign judgment was entitled to full faith and credit.

FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007).
Docket No. 06-969, decided June 25, 2007.
Practice Areas: Election Law

The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the “electioneering communications” provisions found in § 203 of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were unconstitutional as applied to three advertisements it sought to air. Section 203 makes it a federal crime for a corporation to use its general treasury funds to pay for any “electioneering communication,” which is defined as any broadcast that refers to a candidate for federal office and is aired within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction where that candidate is running. The United States Supreme Court found that the advertisements were genuine issue ads, not express advocacy advertisements, and held that no compelling interest justified the regulation of such advertisements.

Lever v. Lighting Galleries, Inc., 374 S.C. 30, 647 S.E.2d 214 (2007).
Opinion No. 26353, decided June 25, 2007.
Practice Areas: Collections, Real Estate

The plaintiff sought a ruling that a mortgage he had executed in favor of the defendant should be extinguished. He argued that because the defendant had sought to collect on the note secured by the mortgage and its judgment had expired, the defendant had elected its remedy and the mortgage should be marked satisfied. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that until a mortgage debt is satisfied, any judgment on the debt secured by the mortgage has no effect on the mortgage lien and does not preclude foreclosure. Therefore, the court held that the defendant may maintain a foreclosure action against the plaintiff.

Atwood Agency v. Black, 374 S.C. 68, 646 S.E.2d 882 (2007).
Opinion No. 26348, decided June 25, 2007.
Practice Areas: Business Litigation

In this equity action, a vacation rental agency alleged that a former employee misappropriated its homeowner and renter lists, using them to divert business from the agency to another employer in violation of the South Carolina Trade Secrets Act. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s injunction against the employee, finding that the content of the renter and homeowner lists was readily ascertainable from publicly available sources and therefore did not qualify for protection under the Act.

Ashley River Properties I, LLC v. Ashley River Properties II, LLC, 374 S.C. 271, 648 S.E.2d 295 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4260, decided June 21, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

In this dispute over control of a limited liability company, the plaintiffs alleged that South Carolina courts had jurisdiction to review the actions of a New York arbitration board because the operating agreement provided that its arbitration clause was governed by the South Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act. However, the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that South Carolina lacked jurisdiction because the operating agreement expressly provided that it was governed by New York law and that New York courts had exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes arising out of the agreement.

Choice Hotels Intern., Inc. v. Shiv Hospitality, LLC, 491 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2007).
Docket No. 05-2201, decided June 20, 2007.
Practice Areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution

A breach of contract dispute between the parties was submitted to arbitration. The plaintiff received an award from the arbitrator and the plaintiff asked the district court to confirm the arbitration award. The court confirmed the award over the objection of the defendant, holding that the defendant’s claims contesting confirmation were time barred. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted that 9 U.S.C. § 12 requires a party to contest an arbitration award within three months of its filing. Because the defendant missed the deadline by six months and could offer no reason for why it chose to wait until the plaintiff sought to confirm the award before attempting to vacate the award, the court upheld the award.

Plott v. Justin Enterprises, 374 S.C. 504, 649 S.E.2d 92 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4258, decided June 18, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

In this property dispute, the defendant planted shrubs and built a wire fence on land where the plaintiffs claimed they had a right-of-way easement for the express purpose of commercially and economically benefiting their land. The defendant claimed that res judicata barred the plaintiffs from seeking relief, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that there was no evidence supporting a determination that in any prior action between the parties the issue of the plaintiffs’ rights in the easement had been litigated and decided. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were not collaterally estopped from litigating the issue because its resolution was not necessary to support the judgment from prior actions between the parties.

Shuler v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op., Inc., 374 S.C. 516, 649 S.E.2d 98 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4256, decided June 18, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

A trustee of an electric co-op sough sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries he sustained while traveling to a national convention, but the co-op denied the claim, contending that he was not an employee. The South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the denial of the claim upon examination of the statutory definition of employee, the Electric Cooperative Act, and the co-op’s bylaws, finding that the trustee was not entitled to compensation for services rendered and therefore was not an employee entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.

Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 374 S.C. 235, 647 S.E.2d 691 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4253, decided June 14, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits for an injury he suffered while working for a painting contractor. The contractor argued that he was not an “employer” within the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act because he did not regularly employ four or more employees. The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed and held that the contractor was not within the jurisdiction of the Act.

Plyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 647 S.E.2d 188 (2007).
Opinion No. 26335, decided June 11, 2007.
Practice Areas: Probate Law

The plaintiff alleged several causes of action against a county probate court relating to its role in supervising her conservatorship. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that because the probate court’s actions were judicial in nature, the court was immune from suit under common law judicial immunity. Furthermore, the probate court did not waive the defense of immunity by omitting the defense from its motion to dismiss because it discussed the defense in its supporting memorandum. The probate court also established several exceptions to the general waiver of immunity in the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.

Lee v. Bunch, 373 S.C. 654, 647 S.E.2d 197 (2007).
Opinion No. 26334, decided June 11, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

The driver of a motorcycle sued the driver of another automobile for injuries he sustained in a traffic accident between the parties. At trial, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence of his pre-accident alcohol consumption on the grounds that it was overly prejudicial. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the denial of the motion because it was within the trial judge’s discretion to admit the evidence. Furthermore, the court held that it was not prejudicial to the plaintiff to allow the defendant to amend his answer to assert comparative negligence, nor was a defense verdict on the plaintiff’s wife’s loss of consortium claim inconsistent with a finding that the defendant was 30% at fault in the accident.

 

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.