Cozi Investments v. Schneider

Decision Date05 February 1979
Docket NumberNo. 20874,20874
Citation252 S.E.2d 116,272 S.C. 354
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesCOZI INVESTMENTS, Respondent, v. Stanley A. SCHNEIDER and Leonard L. Merl, d/b/a Schneider and Merl Associates, Appellants.

Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellants.

Foster, Covington & Patrick, Greenville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This action was brought by respondent Cozi Investments against appellants Stanley A. Schneider and Leonard L. Merl, d/b/a Schneider and Merl Associates to recover actual damages based on a lease guaranty agreement. The issue on appeal is whether the lower court correctly found that personal and subject matter jurisdiction exists as to appellants. We affirm.

The order of the lower court properly sets forth and resolves all questions presented by this appeal and is adopted, with minor modifications, as the opinion of this Court:

ORDER OF JUDGE EPPES

The facts of the case are as follows. The respondent, Cozi Investments, is a North Carolina partnership composed of Peter A. Ziman, a resident of Charleston, South Carolina, and Floyd Cohoon, a resident of Raleigh, North Carolina. Cozi Investments owned certain theatre premises in the Easley Mall in Easley, South Carolina. On December 10, 1974, Cozi entered into a lease contract with Easley Cinema Corporation, a North Carolina corporation, composed of Ziman, Cohoon, as well as the appellants, Schneider and Merl. Simultaneously and contemporaneously with the execution of the lease, the appellants Schneider and Merl executed a personal guaranty, guaranteeing the performance of all of the terms, covenants and conditions of the lease by the tenant, Easley Cinema Corporation. Easley Cinema Corporation thereafter defaulted in its lease obligations and this cause of action was instituted against the appellants on the basis of the guaranty. The appellants are citizens and residents of Raleigh, North Carolina, and Schneider and Merl Associates is a North Carolina partnership.

Jurisdiction in the instant case is based solely upon the Long-Arm Statute, Section 36-2-803, South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976. Jurisdictional questions necessarily dictate a bifurcated determination. The first issue which must be approached in this case is whether the acts of the appellants have brought them within the scope of the Long-Arm Statute of this State . . . The respondent asserts that the appellants, by executing the guaranty, transacted business within this State, contracted to supply services or things in this State, had an interest in used or possessed real property in this State, and entered into a contract to be performed in whole or part by either party in this State. The relevant portion of the guaranty provided as follows:

"FOR VALUE RECEIVED, SCHNEIDER AND MERL ASSOCIATES, a partnership with its principal office located at Raleigh, N. C., does hereby unconditionally guarantee to Cozi Investments, its legal representatives, successors and assigns, the full and due performance by the Tenant named in the within Agreement of Lease, dated December 10, 1974, and its legal representatives, successors and assigns, of each and all of the terms, covenants and conditions of said lease on the Tenant's part to be performed."

The lease agreement provided for the occupation of a store building in the Easley Mall, Easley, South Carolina, for a period of twenty (20) years to be operated as a theatre. The rent agreement provided for a minimum guaranteed rent plus a percentage rent of the gross sales in excess of the specified amount. The lease provided also for use and possession of the common area including the parking facilities surrounding the building.

It seems clear that a cause of action for breach of the lease would be jurisdictionally appropriate in this State. Hence, the determination must be whether there is any viable distinction to be raised from the cause of action based upon breach of the guaranty agreement. "(A guaranty is said to be) 'a promise to answer for the payment of some debt or the performance of some duty in case of the failure of another person who is himself, in the first instance, liable to such payment or performance.' Ruberg v. Brown, 71 S.C. 287, 293, 51 S.E. 96, 98; Carroll County Savings Bank v. Strother, 28 S.C. 504, 6 S.E. 313." McGee, et al. v. F. W. Poe Manufacturing Company, 176 S.C. 288, 293, 180 S.E. 48, 51 (1935). Generally, a guaranty of performance of covenants of a lease made in consideration of the lease premises, is an absolute undertaking upon which the guarantor is liable immediately upon the default of the lessee. 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, Section 662, Page 632.

It is absolutely clear...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Moosally v. WW Norton & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 5, 2004
    ...175, 498 S.E.2d 635 (1998); Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 287 S.C. 200, 336 S.E.2d 867 (1985); see also Cozi Investments v. Schneider, 272 S.C. 354, 252 S.E.2d 116 (1979) (stating that South Carolina's long-arm statute has been construed as a grant of jurisdiction as broad as constitutiona......
  • Askins v. Firedoor Corp. of Florida
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1984
    ...decision to exercise personal jurisdiction over Firedoor is consonant with the requirements of due process. Cozi Investments v. Schneider, 272 S.C. 354, 252 S.E.2d 116 (1979). The question more directly posited is whether Firedoor's activities within this State meet the test of "minimal con......
  • Hume v. Durwood Medical Clinic, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 1984
    ...in these particular circumstances comports with the constitutional requirements of due process of law. Cozi Investments v. Schneider, 272 S.C. 354, 252 S.E.2d 116 (1979). In Parker v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc., 270 S.C. 570, 243 S.E.2d 451, 454 (1978), our Supreme Court, in analyzing Code S......
  • Hidria, USA, Inc. v. Delo
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • March 23, 2016
    ...635, 638 (1998) ; Hammond v. Cummins Engine Co., 287 S.C. 200, 203, 336 S.E.2d 867, 868 (1985) ; see also Cozi Invs. v. Schneider, 272 S.C. 354, 358, 252 S.E.2d 116, 118 (1979) (stating "South Carolina's Long–Arm Statute has been construed on several occasions as a grant of jurisdiction as ......
  • 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