Hardwick v. Jones

• Decision Date: 27 June 2012
• Docket Number: Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-392,Appellate Case No. 2011-190087
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Brandon Hardwick, Appellant, v. Brandon Jones, Respondent.

Brandon Hardwick, Appellant, v. Brandon Jones, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-190087

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-392

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Heard May 24, 2012

Filed June 27, 2012

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Appeal From Charleston County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Akim A. Anastopoulo and Eric M. Poulin, both of Anastopoulo Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, for Appellant.

Margaret Mary Urbanic, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellant Brandon Hardwick appeals the circuit court's order granting Respondent Brandon Jones' motion to enforce settlement. On appeal, Hardwick argues: (1) due process and/or public policy require that a purported settlement agreement be in writing to be enforceable; (2) the circuit court erred infinding an oral agreement as a matter of law where triable issues of fact existed as to the sufficiency of the offer and acceptance; and (3) the circuit court erred in altering and/or adding terms to the purported agreement. We affirm as modified.

1. As to Hardwick's due process argument, we find this issue unpreserved because Hardwick raised the issue for the first time in his Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion. See McClurg v. Deaton, 380 S.C. 563, 579-80, 671 S.E.2d 87, 96 (Ct. App. 2008), aff'd, 395 S.C. 85, 716 S.E.2d 887 (2011) (holding a party may not raise an issue for the first time in a motion to reconsider, alter or amend a judgment).

2. As to Hardwick's argument that triable issues of fact existed as to the sufficiency of the offer and acceptance, we find the circuit court did not err in finding that the parties had reached settlement. See Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241, 672 S.E.2d 799, 802 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are viewed as contracts."); Sherman v. W & B Enterprises, Inc., 357 S.C. 243, 250, 592 S.E.2d 307, 310 (Ct. App. 2003) ("When the existence of a contract is questioned and the evidence either conflicts or gives rise to more than one inference, the issue of the contract's existence becomes a question for the finder of fact."). Specifically, Hardwick's demand letter constituted an offer to settle the case for the policy limits, and Jones' response letter constituted an acceptance of the offer. See Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 660, 582 S.E.2d 432, 439 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A contract is an obligation which arises from actual agreement of the parties manifested by words, oral or written, or by conduct."); Roberts v. Gaskins, 327 S.C. 478, 483, 486 S.E.2d 771, 773 (Ct. App. 1997) ("The necessary elements of a contract are an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration."). See also Erhardt v. Duff, 729 So. 2d 529, 530 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) ("[W]e hold the execution of the release was implicit as part of the tender, and not an additional element of the agreement.").

3. As to whether the circuit court erred in altering the terms of the settlement, we affirm as modified. To the extent the circuit court's ruling can be interpreted as adding...