Crary v. Djebelli, 24757
| Decision Date | 04 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 24757,24757 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | R. Michael CRARY and Carl M. Durham, Respondents, v. Seyed Rassool DJEBELLI and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Defendants, of whom Seyed Rassool Djebelli is the Petitioner. SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent, v. Seyed Rassool DJEBELLI, a/k/a S.R. Djebelli, R. Michael Crary, Carl M. Durham and C & A Mortgage Services, Defendants, of whom Seyed Rassool Djebelli is, Petitioner. . Heard |
William G. Rhoden, of Winter & Rhoden, Gaffney, for petitioner Seyed Rassool Djebelli.
Steven B. Licata, of Husman, Licata & Steele, Columbia, for respondent Southern National Bank of South Carolina.
Michael N. Duncan, of Whiteside-Smith Law Firm, Spartanburg, for respondents R. Michael Crary and Carl M. Durham.
This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision reported at 321 S.C. 38, 467 S.E.2d 128 (Ct.App.1995). We reverse.
The master-in-equity awarded petitioner Seyed Rassool Djebelli judgment against Crary and Durham under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) 1 based on a finding that they engaged in an unfair and deceptive trade practice that affected the public interest because it had the potential for repetition. R. Michael Crary, Carl M. Durham, and C & A Mortgage Services appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove a potential for repetition. We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's holding that the conduct of Respondents Crary and Durham was actionable under the UTPA. To be actionable under the UTPA, the unfair or deceptive act or practice must have an impact upon the public interest. Haley Nursery Co., Inc. v. Forrest, 298 S.C. 520, 381 S.E.2d 906 (1989). Unfair or deceptive acts or practices have an impact upon the public interest if the acts or practices have the potential for repetition. Id.
The Court of Appeals found the master did not point to any evidence in support of his finding that Crary and Durham's acts had the potential for repetition. Petitioner asserts Crary's testimony that he and Durham had had several opportunities to enter into transactions similar to the one here was sufficient to show a potential for repetition. The Court of Appeals found Crary's testimony alone was insufficient to show a potential for repetition without proof that respondents also engaged in unfair or deceptive acts when they had those opportunities in the past or that they were inclined to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices if given the opportunity in the future. Petitioner contends the Court of Appeals added another element of proof when they found that a plaintiff must allege and prove at least two separate torts to show an adverse impact on the public interest. We agree.
After alleging and proving facts demonstrating the potential for repetition of the defendant's actions, the plaintiff has proven an adverse effect on the public interest. Daisy Outdoor Advertising v. Abbott, 322 S.C. 489, 473 S.E.2d 47 (1996). The plaintiff need not allege or prove anything further in relation to the public interest requirement. We held in Daisy the Court of Appeals erred in requiring more. To the extent the Court of Appeals required more than a showing of potential for repetition here, that is error. Daisy, supra.
The potential for repetition may be shown in two ways: 1) by showing the same kind of actions occurred in the past, thus making it likely they will continue to occur absent deterrence, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wogan v. Kunze, 4026.
...for repetition." Singleton v. Stokes Motors, Inc., 358 S.C. 369, 379, 595 S.E.2d 461, 466 (2004) (citing Crary v. Djebelli, 329 S.C. 385, 387, 496 S.E.2d 21, 23 (1998)). The potential for repetition may be shown in either of two ways: (1) by showing the same kind of actions occurred in the ......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Employee Resource Management
...point, plaintiff has proven an adverse effect on the public interest sufficient to recover under the SCUTPA. See Crary v. Djebelli, 329 S.C. 385, 496 S.E.2d 21, 23 (1998). Liberty Mutual presented evidence at trial of ERM's conduct in violation of the "public interest" requirement of the SC......
-
Wright v. Craft
...on public interests if he proves facts that demonstrate the potential for repetition. Id. at 493, 473 S.E.2d at 49; see also Crary, 329 S.C. at 388, 496 S.E.2d at 23 ("The plaintiff need not allege or prove anything further in relation to the public interest Craft's testimony on direct exam......
-
Dabney v. Bank of Am., N.A (In re Dabney)
...of deceptive practices." Schnellmann v. Roettger , 368 S.C. 17, 627 S.E.2d 742, 746 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Crary v. Djebelli , 329 S.C. 385, 496 S.E.2d 21, 23 (1998) ). Plaintiffs have merely alleged in their Amended Complaint a conclusory recitation of the elements of a SCUPTA claim:......
-
Dispensing With the Public Interest Requirement in Private Causes of Action Under the Washington Consumer Protection Act
...Compare text accompanying note 30, with Daisy Outdoor Adver. Co. v. Abbott, 473 S.E.2d 47, 49 (S.C. 1996). 142. Crary v. Djebelli, 496 S.E.2d 21, 23 (S.C. 1998) (noting that an impact on the public interest may be shown if the acts or practices have the potential for 143. Id. (emphasis adde......