Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, No. 0579

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCURETON
Citation287 S.C. 140,337 S.E.2d 244
PartiesCAROLINA ATTRACTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. Sam COURTNEY, John X. Aragona, and The South Carolina National Bank, Defendants, of whom The South Carolina National Bank is Respondent. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 0579
Decision Date23 September 1985

Page 244

337 S.E.2d 244
287 S.C. 140
CAROLINA ATTRACTIONS, INC., Appellant,
v.
Sam COURTNEY, John X. Aragona, and The South Carolina
National Bank, Defendants,
of whom The South Carolina National Bank is Respondent.
No. 0579.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Sept. 23, 1985.
Decided Nov. 20, 1985.

Page 245

[287 S.C. 142] John R. Clarke, North Myrtle Beach, for appellant.

Stan McGuffin of South Carolina Nat. Corp., Columbia, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge.

Appellant Carolina Attractions, Inc. (Carolina) brought suit against both parties to a promissory note: John X. Aragona, the maker and Sam Courtney, the payee. Carolina claims that Courtney breached his contract with Carolina both by forming a corporation named Beach Music Awards Association, Inc. (BMAA) and by selling its stock to Aragona for which Courtney received the note in dispute. Respondent South Carolina National Bank (SCN) was joined as a defendant because it took the note as collateral for two loans to Courtney. On SCN's motion for summary judgment, the trial court found SCN entitled to the note proceeds. The contract action remains unresolved. Carolina appeals. We affirm.

Carolina argues that there exists a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether SCN's interest in the note proceeds is superior to its interest and thus, the court erred in granting summary judgment. Additionally, Carolina insists that even if the trial judge should have granted SCN's motion for summary judgment, he should not have dissolved the order of another circuit judge that required the note proceeds to be held in escrow. Carolina argues that the effect of the dissolution order was to [287 S.C. 143] grant relief not prayed for by proper pleadings. 1 We reject these arguments.

Courtney, a former employee of Carolina, was charged with the responsibility of formulating and promoting the Beach Music Awards Program in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Carolina claims Courtney was contractually bound to pay it a percentage

Page 246

of the net profits from the Beach Music Awards Program. Carolina alleges that Courtney breached this contract by forming his own corporation, BMAA, and selling Carolina's ideas and work product in the form of BMAA stock to Aragona and others for $45,000.00. As part payment for the stock, Aragona gave Courtney a promissory note dated November 4, 1982, for $24,400.00.

Pursuant to a Rule To Show Cause, an order was issued dated March 25, 1983, permitting the joinder of SCN as a defendant and directing Aragona to pay all monies due Courtney under the note into a trust account to be held by the Clerk of Court "until a final hearing has been held, and an Order has been issued as to the disbursement of said monies." Carolina made SCN a defendant because it made loans to Courtney on January 10, 1983 and on January 31, 1983, accepting the note as collateral.

Carolina's second amended complaint alleges that Courtney assigned the note to SCN "in order to avoid [Carolina's] claim, and to defraud [Carolina] from monies owed it by [Courtney]" and that any rights of SCN to the note proceeds "would be inferior and subordinate to the claim of [Carolina]." It then prayed that its interest in the note be declared superior to that of the bank.

SCN answered the second amended complaint admitting that the note matured on July 1, 1983, but denying its interest in the note was inferior to Carolina's. SCN also moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was no genuine issue of a material fact regarding the priority of [287 S.C. 144] its claim to the note proceeds and further requested the March 1983 order be partially dissolved as it related to disbursement of the note proceeds. In support of its motion, SCN attached an affidavit of a loan officer stating that the bank had no knowledge of the pending suit against Courtney until after the loans were made. Carolina filed Courtney's affidavit indicating he advised SCN of Carolina's suit against him prior to SCN's making the loans.

By its order of September 30, 1983, the trial court granted SCN's motion for summary judgment finding that the original note was delivered to SCN on January 10, 1983; that the note remained in SCN's possession since that time; and that SCN had no notice of Carolina's suit against Courtney until after the loans were made. Having made these findings, the court concluded that the bank had a perfected security interest in the note and SCN's claim to the note proceeds were superior to Carolina's and ordered the Clerk to pay over the monies to SCN. 2

Rule 44(c) of the Rules of Practice of the Circuit Court provides that the court shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions and affidavits, if any, show that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Bank v. Wingard Properties Inc., No. 4846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 22 Junio 2011
    ...must rest on an express or implied contract; moral obligations do not sustain equitable liens. Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, 287 S.C. 140, 145, 337 S.E.2d 244, 247 (Ct.App.1985). [394 S.C. 251] One of the cases relied upon by the trial court in awarding an equitable lien, San–A–Be......
  • Varat Enterprises, Inc., In re, No. 95-1950
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 23 Abril 1996
    ...First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Charleston v. Bailey, 450 S.E.2d 77, 80 (S.C.Ct.App.1994); Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, 287 S.C. 140, 337 S.E.2d 244, 247 (Ct.App.1985). A mere breach of contract does not result in an equitable lien, even though the fund against which the lie......
  • Calvert v. Calvert, No. 0578
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Octubre 1985
    ...increase in the cost of living does not amount, at least, by itself, to a change in circumstances. Inflation affects everyone, father, [287 S.C. 140] mother, and child. Baker v. Baker, --- S.C. ----, 332 S.E.2d 550 (1985); Nelson v. Merritt, 281 S.C. at 129-30, 314 S.E.2d at REVERSED. SANDE......
  •  Nutt Corp. v. Howell Rd., LLC, No. 4911.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Noviembre 2011
    ...an equitable lien where there is an adequate remedy [721 S.E.2d 450] at [396 S.C. 328] law.” Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, 287 S.C. 140, 146, 337 S.E.2d 244, 247 (Ct.App.1985). “An ‘adequate’ remedy at law is one which is as certain, practical, complete and efficient to attain the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Bank v. Wingard Properties Inc., No. 4846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 22 Junio 2011
    ...must rest on an express or implied contract; moral obligations do not sustain equitable liens. Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, 287 S.C. 140, 145, 337 S.E.2d 244, 247 (Ct.App.1985). [394 S.C. 251] One of the cases relied upon by the trial court in awarding an equitable lien, San–A–Be......
  • Varat Enterprises, Inc., In re, No. 95-1950
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 23 Abril 1996
    ...First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Charleston v. Bailey, 450 S.E.2d 77, 80 (S.C.Ct.App.1994); Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, 287 S.C. 140, 337 S.E.2d 244, 247 (Ct.App.1985). A mere breach of contract does not result in an equitable lien, even though the fund against which the lie......
  • Calvert v. Calvert, No. 0578
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Octubre 1985
    ...increase in the cost of living does not amount, at least, by itself, to a change in circumstances. Inflation affects everyone, father, [287 S.C. 140] mother, and child. Baker v. Baker, --- S.C. ----, 332 S.E.2d 550 (1985); Nelson v. Merritt, 281 S.C. at 129-30, 314 S.E.2d at REVERSED. SANDE......
  •  Nutt Corp. v. Howell Rd., LLC, No. 4911.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Noviembre 2011
    ...an equitable lien where there is an adequate remedy [721 S.E.2d 450] at [396 S.C. 328] law.” Carolina Attractions, Inc. v. Courtney, 287 S.C. 140, 146, 337 S.E.2d 244, 247 (Ct.App.1985). “An ‘adequate’ remedy at law is one which is as certain, practical, complete and efficient to attain the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT