Bruce H. Williams

The case involved the Highlands Property Owners Association seeking to collect unpaid annual assessments on seven lots owned by Shumaker Land, LLC within a residential development and to foreclose on liens for those assessments. Shumaker LLC counterclaimed for a declaration that it was the successor Declarant under the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, which would exempt the lots from assessments. The Court of Appeals reversed the Master's ruling in favor of Shumaker LLC, holding that the company was not the Declarant because the deeds conveying the lots from the original developer did not expressly assign Declarant rights as required by the Covenants, and a later attempted assignment was invalid. The court reasoned that the Covenants' clear language required explicit transfer of Declarant status for exemption to apply, and without it, assessments properly commenced upon the relevant conveyances.

property

This case concerned a dispute over a mechanic's lien in which Ferguson Fire, a material supplier, sought payment from Immedion, the property owner, after a subcontractor failed to pay for fire suppression system materials delivered to Immedion's data center project. Immedion had paid its contractors in full, including after receiving Ferguson Fire's preliminary notice of furnishing materials. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Immedion, holding that the notice was ineffective under South Carolina statutes to create liability for the owner and that a lien is not protected until properly recorded and served. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the statutes require specific steps for notice and lien perfection that were not met here, and upheld the award of attorney's fees to Immedion for defending the lien action.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two South Carolina realtors, Adrienne Hennes and John Shaw, over commissions from co-listed properties, including a parcel on Lake Keowee, as well as claims stemming from alleged advances or loans between them. Hennes sued Shaw for breach of contract seeking repayment of funds, while Shaw counterclaimed with claims including tortious interference, unfair trade practices, and others. The circuit court granted Hennes a directed verdict on Shaw's UTPA claim and denied Shaw's motion for directed verdict on the breach claim, allowing the case to proceed to a jury that awarded damages to both parties. On appeal, the court affirmed those directed verdict rulings but reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly charged the jury on conversion—a claim not pleaded or properly added—prejudicing Shaw by allowing recovery on an unasserted theory. The case was remanded for a new trial on the remaining claims of breach of contract, tortious interference, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

propertyproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Robinson, the defendant was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, possession within one-half mile of a public park, unlawful carrying of a pistol, possession of marijuana, and resisting arrest following a police encounter on an apartment porch where officers smelled marijuana, observed a pistol in his pocket, conducted a Terry search, and recovered the items after a struggle. The circuit court denied Robinson's motion to suppress the evidence and qualified a drug enforcement commander as an expert witness on crack cocaine packaging and sales, leading to a life sentence under recidivist provisions. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that Robinson waived objection to the marijuana by introducing it himself at trial, the search was supported by reasonable suspicion and the visible firearm without violating Fourth Amendment rights, and the expert's qualification was proper based on decades of narcotics experience and did not prejudice the defense.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

This case involves a divorce action between Latane Sanders and Roy Sanders after 35 years of marriage, where the family court granted a divorce on grounds of adultery and divided the marital estate. Wife appealed the classification of her inherited AG Edwards account as marital property and the equal division of assets, while Husband cross-appealed issues including the valuation date of assets, the marital home's value, and classification of certain personal property as nonmarital. The appellate court affirmed the inclusion of the AG account in the marital estate due to its use in supporting the marriage, indicating transmutation, and the equal division, but reversed the use of different valuation dates for the parties' retirement accounts and remanded for further proceedings on the personal property classification and consistent valuation.

family lawproperty

This case involved a contract dispute between North American Rescue Products, Inc. (NARP) and P.J. Richardson arising from a 2000 agreement for cross-selling commissions and mutual stock ownership, later orally modified in Charleston to reduce the stock percentages to 7.5%, followed by a 2004 Termination Agreement that released prior claims but preserved a separate option for Richardson to acquire 7.5% of NARP's stock. The parties disagreed on whether the modified agreement allowed Richardson to pay cash for the stock or required a like-for-like stock exchange. A jury found that NARP had agreed to a cash payment, that the Termination Agreement did not end Richardson's rights, and that Richardson was entitled to specific performance; it set the price at $2,936,300. The circuit court upheld the verdict, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the jury's findings were supported by evidence in the record and that compelling reasons did not exist to alter the verdict or invade the jury's province.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, Sharon Brunson claimed she developed skin, respiratory, and related problems from chemical exposure while working on an assembly line at American Koyo Bearings, seeking medical benefits, temporary total disability, and permanent disability payments. The employer admitted the contact dermatitis was compensable but contested the other alleged injuries and any permanent impairment. After hearings, the single commissioner initially found the claims compensable but, following remand for a de novo hearing, ruled that Brunson failed to prove compensable work-related injuries or an occupational disease beyond the dermatitis, citing her lack of credibility, prior medical history, and unpersuasive coworker testimony. The Appellate Panel and circuit court affirmed, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the factual findings on causation and credibility and that it could not substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder.

labor & employment

This case involved a dispute over ownership of 6.2 acres of land in Beaufort County, South Carolina, between the estate of Edward Major and Penn Community Services, Inc. The estate sought to quiet title to the property, claiming ownership through a chain of deeds from 1936, while Penn asserted title based on a 1916 deed and long-term possession. The master-in-equity ruled that Penn was the fee simple owner, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision. The court's reasoning relied on historical deeds, plats showing boundaries consistent with Penn's claim, and evidence of Penn's possession without adverse claims for over thirty-five years. The court also rejected the estate's argument that the master lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to issues of intestate succession.

property

In State v. Abraham, the defendant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine after an officer approached him following a near-collision involving his bicycle, leading to Abraham assaulting the officer, fleeing, and discarding a medicine bottle containing cocaine. Abraham argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence from an allegedly unreasonable stop under the Fourth Amendment and in denying his motion for a directed verdict due to insufficient evidence linking him to the cocaine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the suppression issue was not preserved for review because no contemporaneous objection was made at trial, that the officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate even if preserved, and that evidence from the officer's observation of Abraham discarding the bottle supported denying the directed verdict motion as it concerned weight rather than existence of evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from the purchase of a mixed residential and commercial property in South Carolina that contained a house with mold; the buyers sued the sellers and their real estate agent for negligence, alleging failure to disclose known mold issues and related reports from prior failed sales attempts. After a jury verdict for the buyers, the trial court granted the defendants a new trial absolute, leading to appeals by the buyers on that ruling and cross-appeals by the defendants on the application of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act to a non-residential transaction, the denial of a directed verdict, and the admission of evidence from another proceeding. The Court of Appeals reviewed the procedural basis for the new trial order, the scope of disclosure obligations, and evidentiary rulings, determining that the negligence claim was presented to the jury and that certain issues were not preserved for review.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether changes Coastal Carolina Medical Center made to its approved certificate of need (CON) application for a fixed MRI unit constituted a substantial modification under South Carolina regulations, thereby creating a new project that would require fresh approval and potentially void the original CON after a change in ownership. Belfair, a competing imaging facility, challenged the Administrative Law Court's ruling that the amendments were not substantial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the project review criteria had been properly applied, the location remained the same, project costs decreased, and the equipment was substantially similar to the originally approved unit, so the amendments did not trigger a new-project analysis under Regulation 61-15 section 605.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a workers' compensation claim filed by Mildred Shatto, a certified registered nurse anesthetist, after she fell and was injured while working on a temporary assignment at McLeod Regional Medical Center through a staffing agency, Staff Care. The Single Commissioner and Appellate Panel determined that an employment relationship existed between Shatto and McLeod under the borrowed servant doctrine, based on factors such as McLeod's provision of equipment, orientation, and policies, and awarded benefits. McLeod appealed, arguing that Shatto was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the agreements explicitly designated Shatto as an independent contractor with no right of control by McLeod over the details of her professional work, and that other factors like payment structure and tax responsibilities supported independent contractor status rather than employment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employment

In State v. Hill, Jonathan Hill appealed his convictions for two counts of armed robbery, two counts of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and one count of resisting arrest, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The core issue arose when the jury, during deliberations, mistakenly received two written statements by Hill that had been admitted only for a pretrial Jackson v. Denno hearing but were never offered into evidence at trial. The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the convictions for armed robbery and conspiracy, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion because the jury's exposure to the extrinsic statements denied Hill the opportunity to object to them, explain them, or cross-examine the relevant officers. The court found this error was not cured by the jury instructions and required a new trial, while affirming the resisting arrest conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Lindsey, Eddie Lindsey was convicted of armed robbery and assault and battery with intent to kill after a jury trial, and he received concurrent prison sentences. Lindsey appealed, contending that the trial court improperly admitted Lieutenant Creamer’s contemporaneous notes of his confession as hearsay that bolstered the officer’s testimony and that his written statement was also inadmissible. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that although the notes constituted inadmissible hearsay, their admission was harmless error because the same facts were corroborated by Lindsey’s written statement, Investigator Zamberlin’s testimony, and Creamer’s own trial testimony; the challenge to the written statement was deemed abandoned on appeal because it was not argued in the brief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by David Langdale, an independent contractor injured while installing flooring for Harris Carpets. Harris Carpets had contracted with Gevity for workers' compensation coverage and deducted premiums from Langdale's pay, but both entities denied coverage after the injury. The court affirmed the award of temporary total disability benefits to Langdale, finding that Harris Carpets acted as Gevity's agent in handling premiums, that both were estopped from denying coverage due to their conduct, and that substantial evidence supported Langdale's entitlement to benefits based on his medical condition and lack of maximum medical improvement.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between Erie Insurance Company, as surety for a defaulted electrical subcontractor on a school construction project, and Winter Construction Company over Winter's withholding of approximately $350,000 from remaining subcontract funds under a clause that imposed an "administrative burden" charge equal to 15% of completion costs if the subcontractor defaulted. The trial court granted summary judgment to Erie, ruling the clause an unenforceable penalty under South Carolina law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the provision was an enforceable liquidated damages clause because it used a sliding scale based on the remaining subcontract value, served as a fair measure of harm from breach, and was not disproportionate to probable damages given the uncertainty of when a default might occur. The court found the clause valid both as a matter of contract interpretation and public policy, entitling Winter to summary judgment on the issue.

business & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Raquel Martinez, a forensic investigator with the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office, who alleged a mental breakdown after investigating the accidental death of a former colleague's child. The Single Commissioner and Appellate Panel denied benefits, finding the incident was not an unusual or extraordinary condition of her employment and was not the proximate cause of her condition. The circuit court reversed, holding the Commissioner's order insufficient for review and that the incident qualified as compensable. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding the order was reviewable and that substantial evidence supported the Commission's findings on both the nature of the incident and the lack of proximate cause based on medical records attributing her issues to other events like a family member's death and medication withdrawal.

labor & employment

The case involved a dispute between the Estate of Edward Major and Penn Community Services, Inc. over ownership of 6.2 acres of land on Saint Helena's Island in Beaufort County, South Carolina. The Estate sought to quiet title to the property, claiming it through a chain of deeds from 1936, while Penn asserted ownership based on a 1916 deed and long-term possession. The master-in-equity determined that Penn held fee simple title, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the evidence from historical deeds, recorded plats, and unchallenged possession supported Penn's ownership, while also holding that the master had subject matter jurisdiction over the title dispute.

propertyprocedure

In Reed v. Pieper, unmarried parents James Reed and Jennifer Pieper disputed custody of their young child after multiple separations and reconciliations. The family court awarded sole custody to the father after finding both parents fit and determining that the totality of the circumstances served the child's best interests, while ordering each party to bear their own attorney's fees. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo but affirmed, holding that the family court's detailed findings were supported by the evidence from the parties, mental health professionals, and the guardian ad litem. The court emphasized deference to the trial judge's superior position to assess witness credibility in custody matters between fit parents. Mother also challenged the denial of fees, but the appellate court upheld that ruling as well.

family law

This case is a divorce proceeding in which George Grumbos appealed the family court's imputation of income to him for purposes of calculating temporary and permanent alimony to Demetra Grumbos, its award of permanent periodic alimony, and its classification of certain promissory notes as nonmarital debts. Demetra Grumbos cross-appealed the family court's decision to offset the husband's overpayment of temporary alimony against her award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, finding that the family court properly imputed income based on evidence of underemployment and discrepancies in financial records but failed to make the required specific findings under the Glasscock factors when awarding attorney's fees.

family lawprocedure