John D. Geathers

In Magnolia North Property Owners' Ass'n v. Heritage Communities, Inc., a condominium property owners' association sued related companies (Heritage Communities, Inc., Heritage Magnolia North, Inc., and BuildStar) over alleged construction defects in a Horry County complex, raising claims for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court directed a verdict for the POA on liability for negligence and breach of the warranty of workmanlike services; the jury then awarded $6.5 million in actual damages and $2 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial evidence supported a finding of corporate amalgamation that blurred the entities' legal distinctions (following Kincaid v. Landing Development Corp.), that evidence of defects at other Heritage projects was admissible as relevant to awareness and duration of conduct, and that the directed verdicts, denial of JNOV, jury instructions, and punitive award (after post-trial review) were all properly supported by the record.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Roof v. Steele, ex-husband Kenneth Steele appealed a family court order that modified his alimony obligation to his former wife, Yancey Roof, and awarded her attorney’s fees after his employer discontinued dependent health coverage for ex-spouses. The divorce decree had required Steele to pay Roof $300 monthly plus her health insurance premiums through his group policy; when that coverage ended, Roof faced sharply higher costs under COBRA and later the state insurance pool, prompting her to seek modification based on a substantial change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the modification of alimony, holding that the loss of affordable coverage and the resulting unquantifiable increase in expenses qualified as a substantial change even if the possibility of lost coverage was foreseeable at divorce, and it applied the same modification standard used for contested orders rather than a stricter one for agreed decrees. The court reversed in part on other issues, including aspects of the fee award and the precise scope of the modified obligation, and remanded for further proceedings.

family law

In Burris v. Propst Lumber & Logging, Inc., the South Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed a workers’ compensation dispute in which Employer Propst challenged the Appellate Panel’s finding that its policy with Carrier Capital City Insurance provided no coverage for Claimant Everett Burris’s November 5, 2007 workplace injury. The court affirmed the Panel, holding that the policy had lapsed from October 10 through November 26, 2007, leaving Employer directly liable for benefits. It reasoned that the Assigned Risk Supplement authorized Carrier to endorse the 2007–08 policy with an additional premium calculated from the prior year’s audit, that nonpayment of the endorsed amount justified cancellation under the policy terms and NCCI rules, and that Employer’s partial payments after the cancellation date did not restore coverage until full payment was received and the policy was reinstated.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Team IA, Inc. v. Lucas, the case concerned an appeal by employer Team IA from a circuit court order granting partial summary judgment to former employee Cicero Lucas on the grounds that the non-competition and non-solicitation clauses in his 2001 employment agreement were overly broad and unenforceable as a restraint on trade. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court should have applied South Carolina law pursuant to the agreement’s choice-of-law provision rather than Georgia law, and that summary judgment was improper because material facts remained in dispute regarding Lucas’s assigned territory and contacts with customers or prospects. The court reasoned that further factual development was required to determine whether the agreement’s alternative territorial restriction (limited to South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama) was reasonable, while also directing the circuit court to rule on a pending motion to strike a supplemental affidavit and to evaluate the non-solicitation clause under South Carolina law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Singleton, Eugene Singleton was convicted of first-degree burglary and criminal conspiracy following a trial in which the victim identified him in court as the first intruder who entered her home during an armed robbery, and two accomplices also testified against him. Singleton appealed, claiming the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s in-court identification despite inconsistencies in her prior statements and by permitting a reply witness to testify despite violating a sequestration order. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the identification was admissible because it rested on the victim’s personal knowledge and prior familiarity with Singleton, with any inconsistencies affecting only credibility for the jury to weigh. The court also upheld the reply testimony, noting that sequestration is not an absolute right, the witness’s limited rebuttal evidence directly contradicted defense claims about jewelry ownership, and defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine her about any violation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a breach of contract dispute between V.E. Amick & Associates, LLC (Amick), a DHEC-certified environmental remediation company, and Palmetto Environmental Group, Inc. (Palmetto), a subcontractor hired to perform groundwater remediation on three sites. After Palmetto stopped work before completing the projects, Amick hired another firm to finish the work and sued Palmetto for damages. The trial court denied Palmetto's motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed these decisions. The court reasoned that Palmetto's performance was not excused by Amick's alleged failure to hire a qualified engineer because DHEC accepted the work and payments were made, and the jury's damage award was supported by evidence accounting for future payments without needing further offset.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a former employee's lawsuit against KB Home and a supervisor for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and related claims after his 2007 firing, which the employee attributed to reporting workplace misconduct. The employer moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in the 2006 employment application, but the circuit court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appellate court held that a later employment agreement containing a broad merger clause superseded and nullified the arbitration provision from the application. Alternatively, the court found that the employer had waived any right to arbitration by actively participating in litigation, including extensive discovery and court filings, for eighteen months before seeking to compel arbitration.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Spears, Phillip Spears appealed his convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm during a violent crime stemming from a 2006 robbery at a South Carolina bait and tackle shop where two masked men held victims at gunpoint and stole cash and cigarettes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions after reviewing the trial court's rulings on multiple pretrial and trial motions, including denial of a motion to sever the trial from a codefendant, denial of motions to suppress evidence from a search and in-court identifications, and denial of motions for a mistrial based on improper testimony and extraneous jury information. The core reasoning was that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit reversible error, as any improper evidence was subject to the inevitable discovery doctrine, identifications were reliable, and errors were harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt including eyewitness certainty and a confession. The court also found some appellate arguments abandoned or unpreserved.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Phillip Tims, who had become quadriplegic from a prior work-related fall, suffered heatstroke after his employer-provided caregiver left him in an unair-conditioned car. The South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission ordered the employer and carrier to cover medical expenses for the heatstroke, finding it a natural consequence of the original injury because Tims's paralysis prevented him from escaping the vehicle. The circuit court affirmed, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision after reviewing for errors of law and substantial evidence. The court held that proximate cause was established, as the quadriplegia was both the but-for cause and made the heatstroke a foreseeable result within the chain of compensable consequences. It rejected arguments that the caregiver's actions constituted an independent intervening cause breaking that chain.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim brought by railroad employee Shane Bean against South Carolina Central Railroad under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for knee injuries sustained when dismounting a locomotive. Bean had signed a general release and final settlement in exchange for $75,000 after negotiating directly with the railroad, but he later argued the release was invalid due to fraud, mutual mistake, or lack of consideration, and that he lacked adequate discovery before summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the railroad based on the release, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that Bean failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the release's validity, noting the railroad made no misrepresentations about its terms or Bean's work restrictions, accommodated his limitations, and that any statements about future employment were too vague to void the agreement. The release therefore barred all claims, rendering other issues moot.

torts & liabilityprocedurelabor & employment

In Walterboro Community Hospital, Inc. v. Meacher, the hospital brought a declaratory judgment action seeking equitable indemnification for its share of a settlement and damages for breach of contract from a physician staffing agency after a patient sued the hospital, an assigned doctor, and the agency for medical malpractice involving a misdiagnosed testicular condition. The underlying malpractice case settled without any admission of liability, and the agency had declined to defend the hospital under a contract clause that required a defense only for claims arising solely on vicarious liability. The circuit court ruled against the hospital on both claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the hospital had not established the doctor's liability as required for equitable indemnification and that the contract did not obligate the agency to assume the defense or provide indemnification here.

healthcarebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

Carolyn Church sued Carroll McGee (individually and as personal representative of William McGee's estate) and Ted McGee (as trustee) seeking compensation under quantum meruit for full-time caregiving services she provided to the decedent in his final years, along with removal of Carroll as personal representative. After a non-jury trial, the circuit court denied compensation on the ground that Church had not expected payment, denied removal of the personal representative, allowed a limited setoff against her $100,000 bequest under the will, and awarded prejudgment interest. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of compensation and removal but reversed the prejudgment interest award, reasoning that Church's claim to the bequest had not yet become due because estate administration was ongoing and creditors' claims took priority. The court applied the equitable standard of review to the quantum meruit and setoff issues and found sufficient evidence supporting the circuit court's factual determinations.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Tracy B., a fourteen-year-old juvenile, who was convicted in family court of murder, unlawful possession of a handgun, and unlawful possession of a handgun by a minor stemming from the shooting death of Larry Jenkins after a car fired shots near a group of teenagers. Tracy B. appealed, arguing that the family court should have suppressed his inculpatory statement to police because he had invoked his right to counsel, that the court erred in rejecting his self-defense claim, and that a new trial was warranted due to insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Tracy B. had reinitiated communication with police after invoking counsel and that his statement was voluntary, that the State disproved self-defense by showing he shot at a departing vehicle, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts so no new trial was required.

criminal lawgunsfamily lawprocedure

This case involved a declaratory judgment action by Walterboro Community Hospital (Colleton Medical Center) against Dr. David Meacher, his professional association, Carolina Health Specialists (CareFirst), and an insurance underwriting association. Colleton sought equitable indemnification for half of a $100,000 settlement it paid in a medical malpractice suit brought by patient Johnnie Grant, who alleged misdiagnosis of testicular torsion by Dr. Meacher during an emergency room visit arranged under a staffing agreement between Colleton and CareFirst; Colleton also claimed breach of contract for CareFirst's refusal to defend it under the agreement's vicarious liability provision. The circuit court ruled against Colleton on both claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that Colleton failed to establish the elements required for equitable indemnification, including proof that it was without fault and that Dr. Meacher was liable for the patient's damages, and that the contract's defense obligation did not apply because the claims did not arise solely on vicarious liability grounds. Issues regarding nondelegable duties and insurance payments were not addressed as other grounds were dispositive.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned Shirley Mae Geer's conviction for possession of crack cocaine after officers, acting on a statement from a companion, directed her to open her mouth and discovered two rocks of the substance underneath her tongue during a traffic stop. Geer appealed the trial court's denial of her motions to dismiss or continue for withheld exculpatory evidence, to quash the indictment for selective prosecution, to suppress the evidence from the warrantless mouth search, and to suppress due to an allegedly broken chain of custody. The Court of Appeals of South Carolina affirmed the conviction in full, holding that the search was supported by a clear indication of drugs, the chain of custody was adequately documented from seizure through lab analysis, prosecutorial discretion did not violate equal protection, and no continuance was required. A dissent argued the search lacked sufficient corroboration to meet Fourth Amendment standards.

criminal lawprocedure

Cricket Cove Ventures sued Horry County Council members Gilland and Worley for civil conspiracy, seeking damages and injunctive relief after the county refused to review a sketch plan for a proposed condominium development in a resort commercial zone, allegedly due to improper discussions and actions regarding a height-limit ordinance. The developer had previously sued the county and council over the same events, raising claims including due process violations and seeking mandamus. The circuit court dismissed the entire complaint under Rule 12(b)(8) on grounds that it duplicated the prior action. The Court of Appeals held that the parties were not identical and the prior standard for "same claim" no longer applied, but affirmed dismissal of the injunction and mandamus claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because they could not be sustained; it reversed dismissal of the civil conspiracy claim and remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

In this case, property owners and a developer sued the Town of Lexington after the town denied annexation of a 19-acre parcel surrounded by town limits and refused to provide water and wastewater services, despite an existing easement agreement referencing future service upon annexation and the town's provision of similar services to surrounding properties. The plaintiffs asserted multiple claims including breach of contract, violation of ordinances, equal protection and due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, estoppel, mandamus, and declaratory relief. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of substantive due process claims but reversed the dismissal of claims for breach of contract, equal protection, estoppel, mandamus, injunction, and declaratory relief, holding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state those causes of action. The court remanded for further proceedings, finding that the town's status under the Clean Water Act and certain ordinance-based duties did not independently create enforceable obligations in this context.

propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case concerned whether Eugene Draine's automobile insurance policy with GEICO should be reformed to add underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage equal to his liability limits. Draine had rejected UIM coverage when he first obtained the policy in 2003 and, during a 2005 renewal, received a UIM offer form but did not return it while paying the premium for his existing policy without UIM. The court decided that section 38-77-350(E) of the South Carolina Code did not require GEICO to add UIM coverage or reform the policy. The core reasoning was that subsection (E) applies only to new applicants, not to renewals for existing policyholders, and the 2005 offer form itself instructed current policyholders to return it only if they wanted to make changes to their coverage.

business & regulatory

The case involved a special education teacher who sued her school district after being charged with enticing a student to run away from home, asserting multiple claims including breach of contract, defamation, abuse of process, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution arising from interactions with a troubled student and subsequent investigations by school and law enforcement officials. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the district on several tort claims, and the teacher appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict on malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, finding insufficient evidence or immunity under the Tort Claims Act, but reversed on defamation and abuse of process, holding that the record contained evidence of potentially defamatory statements by district personnel and misuse of legal process that should have gone to the jury. The matter was remanded for a new trial on the reversed claims.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In this divorce case, Wife sought a divorce from Husband on grounds of adultery and joined Husband's sister as a party after discovering that title to the marital home and business property was held in the sister's name, with the sister claiming the properties were conveyed to her to repay alleged loans from her to Husband. The family court granted the divorce on one year's separation, awarded Wife 55% of the marital estate plus attorney's fees, found no valid loan from the sister, determined the home had been transmuted into marital property, and ordered the sister to convey the properties to Husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the findings of no loan and transmutation of the home based on the absence of documentation, suspicious timing of the conveyances, and lack of any redemption agreement, but reversed in part on issues including valuation of assets, consideration of marital debts, and certain equitable distribution factors before remanding for further proceedings.

family lawproperty