Edens & Avant Inv. Properties, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2299
| Decision Date | 10 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 2299,2299 |
| Citation | 456 S.E.2d 406,318 S.C. 134 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | EDENS & AVANT INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION and Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., Defendants, of whom Amerada Hess Corporation is Respondent. . Heard |
Thomas E. McCutchen and Evans Taylor Barnette, both of McCutchen, Blanton, Rhodes & Johnson, Columbia, for appellant.
John P. Linton and Edward K. Pritchard, both of Sinkler & Boyd, Charleston, for respondent.
Edens & Avant Investment Properties, Inc., (E & A) appeals a circuit court order granting summary judgment to Amerada Hess Corporation (Hess). We affirm.
In 1989, E & A entered into a contract with Ryan's Family Steak Houses, Inc., (Ryan's) to purchase property from Ryan's. E & A intended to develop a shopping center. The contract required E & A to pay Ryan's earnest money in increments so as to extend the period for closing the sale. Failure by E & A to close within the contract term resulted only in loss of the earnest money, without further obligation to Ryan's. Thus, the contract was properly construed by the circuit court as an option.
E & A negotiated with several tenants and undertook an environmental survey required by its lender. The survey revealed significant benzene contamination of the groundwater. There was evidence that the contamination was from a petroleum spill at a Hess service station on property adjacent to Ryan's property. Eventually E & A abandoned its plans to seek financing and develop the property.
E & A brought an action against Ryan's for recovery of earnest money, engineering expenses and development costs arising out of the land sales contract. E & A later amended its complaint to seek recovery also against Hess. Both defendants timely responded.
Hess filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming E & A lacked standing to pursue any action against Hess because E & A did not have any cognizable rights in the property. The trial court found E & A did not hold sufficient property rights under the option agreement to recover for damages to the property. E & A moved for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP, which the trial court summarily denied. This appeal followed.
In its motion for reconsideration and on appeal, E & A argues the trial judge misapprehended the nature of E & A's claim against Hess because the judge viewed E & A as claiming damages for injury to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Huffines Co., LLC v. Lockhart
...who is not in possession of property assumes no risk and enjoys no interest in the property. Edens & Avant Invest. Prop. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 318 S.C. 134, 136, 456 S.E.2d 406, 407 (Ct. App.1995). In Ingram v. Kasey's Associates, 340 S.C. 98, 531 S.E.2d 287 (2000), our supreme court Optio......
-
Hughes v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (In re Hughes)
...125, 584 S.E.2d 120 (Ct. App. 2003), aff'd, 368 S.C. 410, 629 S.E.2d 635 (S.C. 2006).18 Edens & Avant Investment Properties, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp. , 318 S.C. 134, 456 S.E.2d 406 (Ct. App. 1995).19 Id. 456 S.E.2d at 407.20 Gailliard v. Fleet Mortgage Corp. , 880 F. Supp. 1085 (D.S.C. 19......
-
UED v. ETS, 3436.
...termination case where the former employee allegedly solicited the employer's current clients); Edens & Avant Inv. Props., Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 318 S.C. 134, 456 S.E.2d 406 (Ct.App.1995) (alleging interference with an option contract; nevertheless, the action is dismissed because pla......
-
Webb v. Appalachian Power Co. D/b/a Aep Appalachian Power, Civil Action No. 2:09-0813
...interference with a contractual relationship that results only in pecuniary loss. See, e.g., Edens & Avant Inv. Prop., Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., 456 S.E.2d 406 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995) ("South Carolina, like the majority of states, has not recognized a cause of action for the recovery of pure......