Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In May 2002, Respondent Eagle Windows & Doors, Inc.âs predecessor purchased Eagle & Taylor Companyâs assets (Eagle I) from Eagle I's bankruptcy estate. In 2000, homeowners constructed a residence using defective windows manufactured by Eagle I. In 2006, homeowners settled their construction claims against the Appellant contractor. The contractor and its insurer (Appellants) then brought this contribution suit against Respondent as successor to Eagle I. The circuit court granted respondent's motion to dismiss, holding (1) dismissal was required under Rule 12(b)(6) because a bankruptcy order expressly precluded any state law successor liability actions since the sale was "free and clear" under 11 U.S.C. 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (2) that dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(1) of the state rules of civil procedure because the bankruptcy court in Ohio which issued the Eagle I order retained jurisdiction over any claims against respondent for successor liability. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Appellants' claim did not arise under either the settlement agreement or the order, nor did their claim relate to Eagle I. Rather, it was predicated upon Respondent's post-sale conduct which, Appellants contended, exposed it to successor liability under South Carolina state law. The Supreme Court concluded the court erred in dismissing this suit, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Petitioner Glenda Barron began working for Respondent Labor Finders of South Carolina in Respondent's Charleston office around 1990.  During petitioner's employment, Respondent planned to open a second office location in the Charleston area and informed Petitioner she would be promoted to regional sales manager for both Charleston locations.  In 2004, petitioner signed an agreement acknowledging her status as an at-will employee and setting her compensation as "straight commission" of 3% of customer payments deposited and posted by both Charleston offices each week, to be paid within ninety days of the invoice date. The second Charleston office opened in September 2004 and began earning income that November.  In January of the following year, Petitioner became concerned that respondent had not paid her the full amount of commissions she had earned. The supervisor contacted respondent's owner, who acknowledged that, due to an oversight, he forgot to pay Petitioner the commissions from the new Charleston location.  Petitioner never filed a written complaint with the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, as outlined by the Payment of Wages Act (Act). Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment the next day, stating it was forced to downsize in light of recent budget cuts.  Eight or nine days later, Respondent issued Petitioner a check in excess of the amount she was owed for commissions. Petitioner sued, alleging violations of the Act, breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.  The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent as to all causes of action. Petitioner appealed the entry of summary judgment as to her wrongful termination claim.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner argued on appeal that the Court of Appeals erred in holding she could not maintain a wrongful termination claim under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.  While the Supreme Court agreed the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis, the Court nonetheless affirmed the decision: "[a]lthough we agree. . . that there is no statutory remedy within the Act that would preclude an employee from maintaining a wrongful termination action, we nevertheless decline to address whether the public policy exception applies when an employee is terminated in retaliation for filing a wage complaint with the Department of Labor.  We find the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment because there is simply no evidence the Act was ever implicated."  Petitioner never filed a complaint with the Department of Labor as required by the Act, nor did she ever indicate to respondent she had filed or intended to file a complaint.  "Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner, there is no genuine issue of material fact whether petitioner was terminated in retaliation for availing herself of the protections of the Act."

Respondent optometrist Steven Hobbs sublet space leased by Cole Vision Corporation (Cole Vision) from Sears Roebuck and Company (Sears) for his optometry practice. The sublease agreement between Hobbs and Cole Vision contained indemnity provisions whereby Hobbs agreed to defend Cole Vision and Sears against any and all liabilities arising from events occurring in Hobbs' business location or as a result of Hobbs' activities at the business. The agreement also purportedly required Cole Vision to retain copies of Hobbs' patient records. Pursuant to the agreement, Hobbs obtained professional liability insurance with NCMIC Insurance Company (NCMIC). Mary and John Lewis (the Lewises) sued Hobbs, Cole Vision, and Sears based on Hobbs' alleged malpractice in failing to properly diagnose and treat Mary Lewis. Cole Vision and Sears brought this action for declaratory relief after Hobbs and NCMIC refused to defend them in the malpractice suit. Although the Lewises' case was pending when Cole Vision brought this declaratory judgment action, it eventually settled. Cole Vision and Sears also sought judgment against Hobbs and NCMIC for defense costs and settlement amounts of the malpractice action brought by the Lewises. In response to the complaint, Hobbs filed a defense and counterclaim for negligent spoliation of evidence against Cole Vision and Sears stemming from the loss of Mary Lewis's patient profile sheet. Hobbs contended that Cole Vision lost the profile sheet, which was a key piece of evidence needed to defend the malpractice claim. According to Hobbs, he incurred costs and attorney fees as a result of his inability to adequately defend against the Lewises' claim for malpractice. Cole Vision filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that South Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for spoliation of evidence. The circuit court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. Hobbs appealed the circuit court's order and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court, finding that Hobbs pled facts sufficient to constitute a general negligence cause of action. The court of appeals did not determine whether South Carolina recognizes a cause of action for negligent spoliation, instead reversing the circuit court based on its characterization of Hobbs' claim as a general negligence claim. Upon review of the record of the courts below, the Supreme Court found that Hobbs' claim that Cole Vision breached a contractual duty to maintain the document at issue remained a viable defense in his action for indemnification. The Court declined to recognize the tort of negligent spoliation of evidence and accordingly found that the circuit court properly dismissed it as a counterclaim. The Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Appellant Essie Simmons and Respondent Rubin Simmons divorced in 1990. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that was approved by the family court. Central to the agreement was the requirement that Mr. Simmons give Ms. Simmons a half or third of his Social Security benefits, depending on his age when he retired. When he retired, Mr. Simmons did not pay his ex-wife. She sued, but the family court declined to hear the complaint, finding that it could not hear a case that primarily dealt with Social Security benefits. Mr. Simmons appealed the dismissal, and the appellate court reversed. The court voided the division of Mr. Simmons' benefits, holding that the Social Security Act specifically precluded parties from dividing benefits under the settlement agreement. Because the agreement was partly voided by the court, Ms. Simmons sought to reopen the matter entirely. The family court dismissed again, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the agreement. On appeal, the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether the family court could revisit the now partially voided agreement. Upon careful review of the arguments and applicable legal authority, the Court held that "basic principles of equity suggest[ed] that all issues should be revisited by the family court." The Court recognized the practical difficulties confronting the family court, but the Court noted, "that challenge pales in comparison to [Mr. Simmons'] suggestion that we simply end this matter with the remnant of the agreement remaining valid." The Court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case to the family court for further proceedings.

This case involves the State's "working retiree program," and the propriety of its withholding retirement contributions from eligible members who returned to work with the state prior to July, 2005. Before that time, the program allowed employees to retire, then after a break, be re-hired and receive retirement benefits and a salary of up to $50,000 per year without having to pay into the pension plan. The State was ordered to refund any contributions made since July, 2005 by program members. In 2005, the State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act amended the program to require retired members pay the employee contribution as if they were active members but without accruing additional service credit. The State appealed the circuit court's order to refund the contributions. The retirees challenged the change in the program, arguing that it was unlawful for the State to change the terms of the working retiree program after the retirees "irreversibly retired" with the understanding that contributions to the pension plan would not be required. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and legal authority, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's holding with respect to the State's return of contributions since 2005. The Court found that the Legislature enabled the State to take the contributions when it amended the program by Act in 2005. The Court dismissed the Retirees' challenge to the State Retirement System Preservation and Investment Reform Act, finding no merit in their argument.

Gregory and Kerry Brown appealed the circuit court's confirmation of an arbitration award that was granted to their former general contractor C-Sculptures. C-Sculptures built the Browns' house. The Browns claimed C-Sculptures was precluded from enforcing a contract between them because the contractor's license limited the contractor to work totaling $100,000. C-Sculptures' final invoice totaled over $800,000, and when the Browns refused to pay, the contractor placed a lien on their property for the unpaid amount. The arbitrator awarded C-Sculptures the money it was owed, and the Browns appealed the arbitrator's award to the circuit court, arguing that the statutory limit on the contractor's license limited payment to $100,000. On review, the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator followed the statutory scheme to make his determination in favor of the contractor. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's confirmation of the arbitrator's award.

"The Hamlets" is a subdivision within Crowfield Plantation. Covenants for the subdivision were drafted and recorded in 1991. The covenants created an Architectural Review Board that would enforce the terms of the covenants of the subdivision. Respondents John and Pamela Matsell live in the Hamlets, and their lot abuts a golf course. Their next door neighbors built a fence that covers the majority of the backyard that can be seen from the street that fronts the property, in violation of the covenants. In 2007, the Matsells filed a complaint with the Architectural Review Board to have the Board order the neighbors to remove the fence. When the Board did not comply, the Matsells filed their complaint with the circuit court. The Board argued that it had discretion in interpreting and enforcing the subdivision covenants. The trial court read the "clear language" of the covenants, and found the fence was in violation. The court granted the Matsells summary judgment, and the Board appealed. The Supreme Court found the language of the covenants was plain and unambiguous, and did not allow for a fence that could be seen from the street. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision granting the Matsells summary judgment.

American Media Services, LLC (AMS) appealed an arbitration award that was decided in favor of former employee, Respondent Mark Steinmetz. Steinmetz claimed AMS breached his employment agreement, and the parties agreed to settle the dispute through arbitration. The arbitrator found in favor of Steinmetz. AMS filed a motion to have the award reconsidered by the circuit court, but the court entered judgment in accordance with the arbitrator's findings. The Supreme Court found in submitting its appeal, AMS did not appeal the order of the circuit court, it appealed the order of the arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court did not have jurisdiction over AMS' claim and dismissed it.