Bradley v. Family Ford Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22444,22444 |
| Citation | 287 S.C. 401,339 S.E.2d 122 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ellen BRADLEY and Richard Bradley, Appellants, v. FAMILY FORD SALES, INC., d/b/a/ Vic Bailey Family Ford Sales, Inc., Respondent. . Heard |
Edward L. Bailey, Spartanburg, for appellants.
Dwight F. Patterson, Jr. and Judson K. Chapin, III, of Perrin, Perrin, Mann & Patterson, Spartanburg, for respondent.
This appeal arises from the lower court's order granting summary judgment upon both the appellant's complaint and the respondent's counterclaim. We affirm the order of the lower court.
Appellants purchased a used car from respondent, Family Ford Sales, Inc. The retail installment contract was immediately assigned to Ford Motor Credit Company. Shortly thereafter, appellants refused to make further payments and Ford Motor Credit Company brought a claim and delivery action to recover possession of the car. In that action, plaintiffs counterclaimed by alleging fraud, violations of the federal odometer laws, breach of warranty, and unfair trade practices by Family Ford Sales, Inc. Appellants alleged that Ford Motor Credit Company was liable for those claims as a holder of the retail installment contract. Before Ford Motor Credit Company replied to the counterclaims, the case was settled pursuant to a release whereby appellants reserved their rights to proceed against Family Ford Sales, Inc. A consent order was executed and judgment was filed accordingly.
Before that case was settled, appellants filed the present action against Family Ford Sales, Inc. alleging fraud, odometer violations, breach of warranty, and unfair trade practices. Respondent counterclaimed in the present action alleging it was the holder of the contract, and that appellants were liable for a deficiency on the account existing after repossession and resale of the automobile.
Respondent then moved for summary judgment upon the present complaint and its counterclaim. The lower court granted respondent's motions. In so doing, the court held that the order in the first action stopped or barred appellants from continuing their action against respondent. Appellants now appeal the entire order of the lower court and maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate on the counterclaim or the complaint.
The prior action instituted by Ford Motor Credit Company against the Bradleys was settled before it reached trial. The parties executed a receipt and release on June 14, 1983. In this release, the appellants reserved all rights, claims, or causes of action against the respondent. On July 5, 1983, the Court of Common Pleas issued an order of dismissal. The operative language of that order is as follows:
ORDERED that the above-entitled action [the prior action], including the Complaint and all Counterclaims be, and the same are, hereby dismissed with prejudice and the parties be and they hereby are forever barred from instituting or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Grubbs, 3599.
-
Abu-Shawareb v. South Carolina State Univ.
...argued the release and order of dismissal in the federal action barred the Abu-Shawareb's claims, relying on Bradley v. Family Ford Sales, Inc., 287 S.C. 401, 339 S.E.2d 122 (1986). The university's motion for summary judgment was taken under advisement by the court and the trial At trial, ......