Poco-Grande Investments v. C & S Family Credit, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1493,POCO-GRANDE,1493 |
| Parties | INVESTMENTS, a Partnership consisting of James F. Podell and Phriness E. Cox, Appellant, v. C & S FAMILY CREDIT, INC., formerly known as Family Credit Services, Inc., Respondent. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Gerald D. Jowers, Columbia, for appellant.
Angela L. Henry of McKay, McKay & Henry, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant Poco-Grande Investments, a partnership consisting of James F. Podell and Phriness E. Cox, sued respondent C & S Family Credit, Inc., formerly known as Family Credit Services, Inc., alleging "constructive fraud." The Circuit Court granted summary judgment for C & S. We affirm.
C & S foreclosed its mortgage on a house and lot. The foreclosure sale was conducted by the Master-in-Equity for Richland County. The Master advertised that the property would be sold on April 4, 1988, "subject to the lien of Central Bergin Savings and Loan recorded in the Richland County RMC Office at M254, Page 301 on 1-21-72 having an approximate balance as of February 1, 1988 of $2,332.73." The advertisement ran for three consecutive weeks. The Poco-Grande partnership was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale, paying five percent of the purchase price at the time of the sale and the balance within the required three weeks. The partners thereafter learned that the amount due on the lien of Central Bergin Savings & Loan was not $2,332.73, but was actually in excess of $12,000.
The dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether "[t]he appellant had the right to rely on the representations made in the Master's notice of sale." Even assuming C & S was responsible for the incorrect information in the notice, the partners had no right to rely on it. Florentine Corp. Inc., v. PEDA I, Inc., 287 S.C. 382, 386, 339 S.E.2d 112, 114 (1985). The partners are sophisticated and mature businessmen. One of them is in the real estate business and the other is a lawyer. It is undisputed that neither of them attempted to verify the amount due on the lien. There is no evidence that they could not have done so. King v. Oxford, 282 S.C. 307, 312, 318 S.E.2d 125, 128 (Ct.App.1984).
Counsel for the partnership argues: "The integrity of Judicial Sales requires that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. Pelstring
...is no right to rely.” Ardis v. Cox, 314 S.C. 512, 431 S.E.2d 267, 270 (S.C.Ct.App.1993) (citing Poco–Grande Inv. v. C & S Family Credit, Inc., 301 S.C. 323, 391 S.E.2d 735, 735 (S.C.Ct.App.1990)). The plaintiffs agree in their response to PLIVA's motion for summary judgment that constructiv......
-
Warner v. Lexington Med. Ctr.
...people is involved, there is no right to rely." Id. at 516, 431 S.E.2d at 270 (citing Poco-Grande Invs. v. C. & S Family Credit, Inc., 301 S.C. 322, 325, 391 S.E.2d 735, 735 (Ct. App. 1990)). Under South Carolina law, "[a] fiduciary relationship is founded on the trust and confidence repose......
-
In re Hovis
...we find this matter fails to meet the elements necessary to show constructive fraud."); Poco-Grande Invs. v. C & S Family Credit, Inc., 301 S.C. 323, 325, 391 S.E.2d 735, 735-36 (Ct.App.1990) (affirming summary judgment on constructive fraud claim where arm's length transaction with "sophis......
-
Kraft Real Estate Invs. LLC v. Homeaway.com, Inc.
...there is no right to rely." Florentine Corp., Inc. v. PEDA I, Inc., 339 S.E.2d112, 114 (S.C. 1985); Poco-Grande Invs. v. C & S Family Credit, Inc., 391 S.E.2d 735, 736 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990). "The principle of the right of reliance upon representations is closely bound up with a duty on the p......