Ellis v. Smith Grading and Paving, Inc.

Decision Date08 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. 1085,1085
Citation294 S.C. 470,366 S.E.2d 12
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesMona T. ELLIS, Respondent, v. SMITH GRADING AND PAVING, INC., Orangeburg Redi-Mix, Inc., and Statewide Contractors, Inc., Defendants, of whom Smith Grading and Paving, Inc. is Appellant. Appeal of SMITH GRADING AND PAVING, INC.

E. Leroy Nettles, Sr., of Nettles, Floyd, Turbeville, and Reddeck, Lake City, for appellant.

Marty S. McGee, Orangeburg, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

This is an action in equity brought by Mona T. Ellis against Smith Grading and Paving, Inc., Orangeburg Redi-Mix, Inc., and Statewide Contractors, Inc., for an accounting and restitution. The case was referred to the Master-In-Equity to enter a final judgment with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The Master found Smith had been unjustly enriched in the sum of $24,960.17 and ordered it make restitution to Ellis in that amount. Redi-Mix was granted a directed verdict and Statewide was dismissed as a party. Smith appeals. We reverse.

The facts of this case are basically undisputed. Ellis, a periodontist, was the president and sole stockholder in Statewide from its inception in March 1983 until October 7, 1985. Her boyfriend, Lewis Givens, managed the corporation. Smith was the general contractor on a South Carolina State Highway Department project in Orangeburg County. Statewide was a subcontractor of Smith. Redi-Mix supplied goods and materials to Statewide for use on the project. Smith guaranteed payment to Redi-Mix for the materials furnished. In addition, Smith obtained payment and performance bonds on the project.

Statewide first encountered tax problems in 1984 when the corporation failed to forward to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee withholding taxes. The IRS contacted Ellis and she paid $18,000 in borrowed funds to the IRS in January 1985. When the problem recurred in 1985, Ellis and Givens informed the IRS that Statewide could borrow no more money but the corporation was due money from Smith on the highway project. Ellis and Givens then authorized the IRS to levy upon the monies due Statewide from Smith. On October 7, 1985, Ellis transferred her stock in Statewide to Givens in return for Givens' promise to pay the taxes and assume other debts of the corporation for which Ellis was personally liable. Givens also agreed to indemnify and hold Ellis harmless from all losses or additional expenses incurred by her as a result of his failure to comply with the agreement.

On October 8, 1985, the IRS gave written notice to Smith that it was levying on all monies owed by Smith to Statewide. Smith notified Ellis it would not pay the money it owed Statewide to the IRS. On October 16, 1985, Ellis advised the IRS that Smith intended to pay suppliers of Statewide with the contract proceeds instead of the IRS. Smith made two payments totaling $23,949.32 to Redi-Mix in March and April 1986.

The IRS held Ellis and Givens personally liable for the employee withholding taxes in the amount of approximately $25,000.00. Ellis paid the IRS $10,000.00 and is paying the balance at the rate of $1,000.00 per month. The IRS also assessed a 100% penalty against Ellis.

Ellis sued Smith, Redi-Mix and Statewide "for an accounting and for restitution arising out of" Smith's payment to Redi-Mix of the monies it owed Statewide after receipt of the levy notice. Smith filed a motion pursuant to S.C.R.Civ.P. 12(b) to dismiss the case on the grounds Ellis lacked standing to sue Smith, Ellis had no contractual relationship with it, and the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it.

The master held the money due from Smith to Statewide was subject to the IRS levy. He found Smith owed Statewide and the IRS a duty to pay the money over to the IRS pursuant to an "assignment" of the contract proceeds to the IRS by Statewide. 1 He reasoned that while there was no privity of contract between Smith and Ellis, she would have been a direct beneficiary of the payment to the IRS. He further found Smith unjustly enriched because it did not have to pay both the IRS and Redi-Mix. 2 As best we understand Ellis' theory of recovery, she claims that because Smith failed to pay the IRS pursuant to its tax levy, Smith retains the amount of $24,960.17 or has benefited in that amount. She further claims she is entitled to that sum because if Smith had paid the IRS, she would not have been required to also pay the IRS.

Smith argues on appeal the Master erred in ruling: (1) the complaint stated a cause of action against Smith in quasi-contract; (2) Ellis had standing to bring the suit; and (3) the funds in Smith's hands were subject to the IRS levy.

In an appeal of an equitable action tried before a Master authorized to enter final judgment, this court must review the entire record and make its own findings of fact in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence. Patterson v. Goldsmith, 292 S.C. 619, 358 S.E.2d 163 (Ct.App.1987). An action for an accounting is equitable. Byrd v. King, 245 S.C. 247, 140 S.E.2d 158 (1965). "Restitution is a remedy designed to prevent unjust enrichment." Stanley Smith and Sons v. Limestone College, 283 S.C. 430, 434, 322 S.E.2d 474, 478 (Ct.App.1984). Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine, akin to restitution, which permits the recovery of that amount the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff. Barrett v. Miller, 283 S.C. 262, 264, 321 S.E.2d 198, 199 (Ct.App.1984).

The master concluded Smith owed Ellis an obligation "arising out of quasi-contract, that is, a contract arising out of the 'law of natural immutable justice and equity.' " See 66 Am.Jur.2d Restitution...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • In re Pork Antitrust Litig., Civil Nos. 18-1776
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • October 20, 2020
    ......Cottrell and Christina Henk Briesacher, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, 300 North LaSalle Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60654, for ... of Columbia 20036, for Defendant Smithfield Foods, Inc. Vollis Gene Summerlin Jr., HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, 13330 ... instead among the state's rules of procedure." See Smith-Brown v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. , Civil No. 18-610, 2019 WL ...Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 294 S.C. 470, 366 S.E.2d 12, 15 (S.C. App. ......
  • In re In re Bearings
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 25, 2014
    ...resulted from a valid contractual arrangement so the result was not contrary to equity); Ellis v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 294 S.C. 470, 366 S.E.2d 12, 15 (S.C.Ct.App.1988) (outlining elements of claim, with no reference to a requirement to allege the existence of a duty); Freeman Indu......
  • In re Senders
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • July 3, 2014
    ...by the defendant of the benefit under conditions that make it unjust for it to retain the benefit. Ellis v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 294 S.C. 470, 366 S.E.2d 12, 15 (S.C.Ct.App.1988). There is no requirement to allege the existence of a duty. Further, ADPs have alleged that they confer......
  • In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 25, 2014
    ...resulted from a valid contractual arrangement so the result was not contrary to equity); Ellis v. Smith Grading & Paving, Inc., 294 S.C. 470, 366 S.E.2d 12, 15 (S.C.Ct.App.1988) (outlining elements of claim, with no reference to a requirement to allege the existence of a duty); Freeman Indu......
  • 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