• 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.

Simpson v. MSA of Myrtle Beach, Inc., 373 S.C. 14, 644 S.E.2d 663 (2007).
Opinion No. 26293, decided March 26, 2007.
Practice Areas: Alternative Dispute Resolution

The plaintiff filed suit alleging multiple causes of action against a car dealership. The dealership pointed to an arbitration clause in the contract between the parties and moved to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration. The South Carolina Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable because the customer had no meaningful choice but to accept the dealership’s terms and the clause contained one-sided terms limiting the customer’s statutory remedies but not the dealership’s and prohibiting the customer from suing for breach of warranty. The court also held that a trial court, not an arbitration proceeding, was the proper forum for determining the enforceability of the arbitration clause.

Gissel v. Hart, 373 S.C. 281, 644 S.E.2d 772 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4224, decided March 26, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

Several mobile home purchasers sued a mobile home dealership, naming both the dealership and several individuals as defendants. The dealership settled and an arbitrator awarded damages against the individual defendants. The South Carolina Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not clearly assert claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities rather than as representatives of the dealership. Therefore, the court vacated the portions of the arbitrator’s awards that purported to impose liability on the individual defendants in their individual, rather than representative, capacities. The South Carolina Supreme Court later reversed, holding that it was error to look to the allegations of the complaint in order to determine whether the award was proper. See Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 676 S.E.2d 320 (2009).

Cummins Atlantic, Inc. v. Sonny’s Camp-N-Travel Mart, Inc., 481 F.Supp.2d 531 (D.S.C. 2007).
Decided March 21, 2007.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury

Several people were poisoned by carbon monoxide due to a defect in the exhaust system of a generator installed on a recreational vehicle by the plaintiff. After those who had been injured obtained judgments against the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued the defendant for contribution, alleging that because the defendant changed the oil on the generator and did not discover the exhaust defect, it too had violated a duty of care to the injured. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the defendant had a duty to inspect the generator’s exhaust system.

Bowers v. Thomas, 373 S.C. 240, 644 S.E.2d 751 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4221, decided March 19, 2007.
Practice Areas: Landlord-Tenant, Real Estate

A landlord filed suit to evict a tenant who had failed to pay rent within a grace period for three consecutive months. The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to give proper notice of his intention to evict the tenant, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that a letter notifying the tenant that any subsequent non-payment of rent would result in eviction was sufficient notice to terminate the lease after the late payment of the following month’s rent.

Vaughan v. McLeod Regional Medical Center, 372 S.C. 505, 642 S.E.2d 744 (2007).
Opinion No. 26285, decided March 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Hospital and Medical Malpractice Defense

A man was injured in an automobile accident and declared permanently incapacitated by a court-appointed medical examiner in a guardianship proceeding. Two months later, he was declared to be no longer incapacitated. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that S.C. Code Ann. § 44-66-70(A) did not provide immunity for the examiner because the examiner was not a person entitled by statute to make health care decisions for the incapacitated patient. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the examiner and hospital based on common law immunity. The court held that court-appointed examiners in guardianship proceedings have absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions and opinions within the scope of the appointment.

Fici v. Koon, 372 S.C. 341, 642 S.E.2d 602 (2007).
Opinion No. 26283, decided March 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Real Estate

Buyers in a real estate transaction sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of a parcel of land. The contract stated that the property to be conveyed would be “at least thirty acres” and that the buyer and seller would later agree on property lines. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the contract did not contain a description of the property sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, which requires that, in order to be enforceable by a court, contracts for the sale of land must be in writing, signed, and contain a description of the property to be conveyed.

Fickling v. City of Charleston, 372 S.C. 597, 643 S.E.2d 110 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4217, decided March 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Personal Injury

The plaintiff was severely injured when she tripped and fell due to a hole in a city sidewalk. In her suit against the city, the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a statute requiring cities to maintain streets and sidewalks in good repair did not create a private right of action by individuals against cities. However, the court held that a directed verdict for the city was inappropriate because the jury could have found that the city owed a common law duty to the plaintiff based on its control over the maintenance of the sidewalk or that the city owed a duty to the plaintiff based on its voluntarily undertaking to repair and maintain city sidewalks.

South Carolina Dist. Council of Assemblies of God v. River of Life Intern. Worship Center, 372 S.C. 581, 643 S.E.2d 104 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4216, decided March 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Church Law

The South Carolina District of the Assemblies of God sought a declaratory judgment that when a church voted to disaffiliate with the Assemblies of God, its property and assets were transferred to the District. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the declaratory judgment in favor of the District because the Constitution and Bylaws for District Affiliated Assemblies provided that in the event a church ever ceased functioning as an Assemblies of God church, all its property and assets would immediately become the District’s property.

Mosseri, Mosseri, Castro v. Austin’s at the Beach, Inc., 372 S.C. 593, 642 S.E.2d 760 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4215, decided March 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

A landlord filed an action for nonpayment of rent in magistrate’s court, alleging damages of less than the $7,500 jurisdictional limit for magistrate’s court. However, the defendant tenant filed counterclaims, alleged damages well in excess of $7,500, and attempted to remove the case to circuit court. The magistrate denied removal and retained jurisdiction pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-10(10), which provides that the jurisdictional limit does not apply to disputes involving “landlord and tenant and the possession of land.” However, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the case should have been transferred to circuit court because the case did not involve a dispute over the possession of property.

Vaughn Development, Inc. v. Westvaco Development Corp., 372 S.C. 576, 642 S.E.2d 757 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4214, decided March 12, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

In this breach of contract case, the South Carolina Court of Appeals court reversed a lower court’s award of prejudgment interest to the prevailing party. The court held that prejudgment interest may not be awarded where the measure of recovery was not fixed at the time the claim arose, but only where the amount of damages is certain or capable of being reduced to certainty.

Sinochem Intern. Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007).
Docket No. 06-102, decided March 5, 2007.
Practice Areas: Litigation

A Malaysian company sued a Chinese company in federal court. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, a doctrine giving courts discretion to dismiss cases when trial in another jurisdiction would be fairer and more convenient, because a Chinese court would be a more appropriate venue. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that the district court could not dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds unless and until it determined that it had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the United States Supreme Court held that a court need not resolve whether it has personal or subject-matter jurisdiction if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case.

Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston County School Dist., 372 S.C. 470, 642 S.E.2d 726 (2007).
Opinion No. 26280, decided March 5, 2007.
Practice Areas: Construction Law

A subcontractor brought actions for breach of contract against his general contractor and tortious interference against the project owner. The subcontractor alleged that the general contractor breached the contract by not awarding it certain electrical work. The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that there was no breach of contract because the work in question was outside the scope of the definition of “Work” in the contract documents. Additionally, the court held that the subcontractor’s tortious interference claim failed because there was no breach of contract upon which to base the interference claim.

Porter v. Labor Depot, 372 S.C. 560, 643 S.E.2d 96 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4212, decided March 5, 2007.
Practice Areas: Workers' Compensation

The central issue in this case was whether a workers’ compensation claimant had an employer-employee relationship with the defendant company at the time of the claimant’s injury. The South Carolina Court of Appeals, while noting that the workers’ compensation statutes should generally be construed in favor of coverage, upheld the denial of benefits to the claimant in light of the fact that he failed to offer any documentary evidence of employment such as wage receipts, check stubs, copies of completed applications, W-2 forms, or copies of income tax returns.

 

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.