Gauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co.
Decision Date | 14 November 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 4455.,4455. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Samantha GAULD, Appellant, v. O'SHAUGNESSY REALTY COMPANY d/b/a Prudential Carolina Real Estate, Chip Allen, Julie Lynch, and Raymond Harris, Defendants, Of whom O'Shaugnessy Realty Company d/b/a Prudential Carolina Real Estate, Chip Allen, and Julie Lynch are the, Respondents. |
R. Clenten Campbell, of Walterboro and Jonathan F. Krell and Alan Toporek, both of Charleston, for Appellant.
Michael Scarafile, of North Charleston and Michael Scardato, of Charleston, for Respondents.
Samantha Gauld (Gauld) appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of Respondents on her claims for breach of contract, breach of contract with a fraudulent act breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. We affirm.1
In this case arising from Samantha Gauld's purchase of 102 Lucretia Lane in Summerville, she alleged breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, and negligent misrepresentation against her real estate agent, Julie Lynch (Lynch); the agent of the seller, Chip Allen (Allen); and the employer for both, O'Shaugnessy Realty Company d/b/a Prudential Carolina Real Estate (Prudential).
At the hearing for the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Gauld agreed to dismiss the breach of contract claim against Allen. The circuit court expounded in its order, "there is no admissible or credible evidence as to the existence or amount of any alleged damage and, as such, summary judgment is appropriate as to all Defendants and all causes of action."
Over a fifteen year period preceding this action, Gauld purchased, refurbished and resold numerous homes across the country. In fall of 2002, while living in Maine, Gauld became interested in the Charleston market. After deciding Charleston was beyond her budget, her search expanded to include the Summerville area. Ideally, she sought a historic property suitable as a bed and breakfast. If real estate with these characteristics could not be found, Gauld had a "Plan B" which entailed "a short term investment that I expected to make a big profit on in a very short period of time while we continued to look for a historic property."
Gauld made trips from Maine to South Carolina in 2002, 2003, and 2004, and she enlisted the services of Lynch, a real estate agent with Prudential's Mount Pleasant office. Gauld and her husband routinely reviewed realty websites and discovered 102 Lucretia Lane in the Tea Farm subdivision. The owner had relocated out of state and hired Allen, an agent with Prudential's Summerville office, to sell the home.
Gauld offered to buy the residence "as is" for $400,000, but made the deal contingent upon her satisfaction with a home inspection and an appraisal at or above the purchase price. After the home inspection and an appraisal valuing the home at $420,000, Gauld accepted the property "as is" and closed in May 2004. She and her husband moved in and made substantial repairs. Gauld testified that, within a week of closing, she was approached by a landscaper asking to cut her lawn. Through their conversation, she became aware of the proposed extension of Phase III of the Berlin G. Myers Parkway along the Sawmill Branch, three hundred feet behind the home. According to Allen's deposition, Phase III has been discussed over the last thirty-five years with citizens and environmental attorneys resisting its construction. Phases I and II were completed years ago. Approximately six months after the closing on 102 Lucretia Lane, a Dorchester County tax referendum passed providing potential funds for road projects. In Allen's estimation, this event made the construction of the road a "probability."
Multiple appraisals were conducted on 102 Lucretia Lane valuing it at $570,000 in April 2005, $605,000 in May 2005, and $650,000 in January 2006. On January 4, 2005, Gauld put the property up for sale with an asking price of $650,000, which she later increased to $660,000. In June 2005, the house was advertised at $660,000, and a listing in the record, dated July 7, 2006, features a price of $787,500. When asked why she listed the home at more than its appraisal, Gauld explained:
A: Again, I'm not a realtor, but usually when you're selling real estate, you don't put the price you want. You add a little on top. No one is ever going to offer you what you're asking, that I'm aware of. Secondly, there was some personal property conveyed, and that value was not reflected in here. I, also, in following the local comps, was aware that land right in Tea Farm was selling for — like, a cluster lot was selling for 200,000, and my opinion, my lot, a portion of the price was low in here. I'm not an expert, but to me it seemed a little low on the golf course. I have great views. That's just my personal opinion. That means nothing. I'm not an appraiser.
Although Gauld's deposition is difficult to follow, it indicates she received offers of $650,000, $629,500, and $665,000. Additionally, she averred to having been offered $630,000 in a cash deal. In her deposition, Gauld was asked about the home's worth:
Jeffery Wyman, Gauld's expert witness, opined the house was worth a maximum of $650,000. Wyman was asked about the increase in property values in the neighborhood:
When shown the listing for Gauld's first attempt to sell the house, Wyman stated:
Wyman was not asked to appraise other property along the proposed parkway nor conduct appraisals considering noise impact or the value of the 102 Lucretia Lane with or without the parkway in place:
Allen answered questions concerning his method of valuing homes. At his deposition, Allen was asked whether he currently had any homes listed at a price he considered to be in excess of ten percent of their actual worth. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Winters v. Fiddie
-
Sanders v. Sanders
...owner of the property, that the marital home and ten and one-half acres had a value of $380,000. See Gauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co., 380 S.C. 548, 560, 671 S.E.2d 79, 86 (Ct.App.2008) (“As a general principle, a landowner who is familiar with her property and its value, is allowed to give......
-
Davidson v. City of Beaufort
...on the parking lot or to show any special relationship between themselves and Brantley or Collins. SeeGauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co., 380 S.C. 548, 559, 671 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the [nonmoving] party's case necessar......
-
Davidson v. City of Beaufort
... ... between themselves and Brantley or Collins. See ... Gauld v. O'Shaugnessy Realty Co. , 380 S.C. 548, ... 559, 671 S.E.2d 79, 85 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A ... ...