Bates v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 26 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 1958,1958 |
| Citation | 427 S.E.2d 907,311 S.C. 158 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Charles L. BATES, Respondent, v. Ted LEWIS, Bentley Development, Ltd., Greenhills Partnership, Ltd., Appellants. . Heard |
James W. Bradford, Jr. and Louis H. Lang, Callison, Tighe, Robinson & Anastasion, Columbia, for appellants.
W. Duvall Spruill of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, P.A., Columbia, for respondent.
Charles L. Bates sued Bentley Development, Ted Lewis, and Greenhills Partnership, Ltd. for breach of a settlement agreement. The court granted Bates's motion for summary judgment. The Bentley group made a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, which the court denied. The Bentley group appeals. We affirm.
The Bentley group hired Bates to do architectural work. After it failed to pay Bates for his services, Bates sued the Bentley group. The group informed Bates that it had serious financial difficulties, and even if Bates obtained a judgment, the group would probably not be able to pay it. It provided Bates with an internal financial statement. In reliance on this statement, Bates agreed to settle his claim for a lesser sum. As part of the settlement, the Bentley group agreed to deliver an independent financial statement to confirm its internal statement. In addition, the Bentley group agreed to be jointly and severally liable to Bates for $60,000 if the internal financial statement, upon which Bates relied in agreeing to the settlement, contained material overstatements of liabilities or material omissions of assets. The agreement stated in pertinent part:
The omission of any asset having a market value of over $5,000.00, or the overstatement of any liability in an amount of over $5,000.00 shall be deemed material.
The agreement also stated that once Bates received the independent financial statement from the group, Bates would have three months to determine whether the internal financial statement contained any material misrepresentations.
1. The Bentley group first argues the court erred in granting summary judgment, because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Bates objected to the Bentley group's internal financial statement before the three month deadline. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hatchell v. Jackson, 290 S.C. 256, 349 S.E.2d 407 (Ct.App.1986). All ambiguities and inferences arising from the pleadings and admissions must be construed most strongly against the moving party. Id.
The settlement agreement required the Bentley group to retain an independent certified public accountant to conduct an audit and present it to Bates. The agreement also states: "If Charles L. Bates does not present a written objection [to the Bentley group's internal financial statement] within three months of the date he receives the [independent financial statement], he will have no further rights or remedies under this commitment." On November 9, 1989, the Bentley group's attorney wrote Bates a letter informing him the independent financial statement was complete and ready for review. However, the record shows the Bentley group delivered the independent financial report to Bates at the earliest on December 8, 1989. On March 7, 1990, within three months of receiving the documents, Bates sent a letter to the Bentley group informing it that its internal financial statement contained material overstatements and omissions based on a review of the independent financial statement.
The Bentley group's argument that Bates did not object within three months fails for two reasons. First, the settlement agreement makes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC v. Gilleland-Prince
...by its plain terms.” Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443, 455, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct.App.2014) (quoting Bates v. Lewis, 311 S.C. 158, 161 n. 1, 427 S.E.2d 907, 909 n. 1 (Ct.App.1993) ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gordon Farms, Inc. v. Carolina Cinema Corp., 294 S.C. 158, 16......
-
Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC v. Gilleland-Prince, Appellate Case No. 2013-000305
...by its plain terms." Watson v. Underwood, 407 S.C. 443, 455, 756 S.E.2d 155, 161 (Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Bates v. Lewis, 311 S.C. 158, 161 n.1, 427 S.E.2d 907, 909 n.1 (Ct. App. 1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Gordon Farms, Inc. v. Carolina Cinema Corp., 294 S.C. 158, 1......
-
Watson v. Underwood
...evidence cannot be used to give the contract a meaning different from that indicated by its plain terms.” Bates v. Lewis, 311 S.C. 158, 161 n. 1, 427 S.E.2d 907, 909 n. 1 (Ct.App.1993). “A contract is ambiguous only when it may fairly and reasonably be understood in more ways than one.” Jor......
-
Curry v. Carolina Ins. Grp. of SC, Inc.
...cannot be used to give the contract a meaning different from that indicated by its plain terms." Bates v. Lewis , 311 S.C. 158, 161 n.1, 427 S.E.2d 907, 909 n.1 (Ct. App. 1993). "A contract is ambiguous only when it may fairly and reasonably be understood in more ways than one." Jordan , 31......