Linda A. Gibson, Formerly Known of the Paul William Gibson Family Trust, & Heritage Seven, LLC v. Ameris Bank, Opinion No. 5488.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Citation | 420 S.C. 536,804 S.E.2d 276 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5488. |
| Parties | Linda A. GIBSON, formerly known as Linda Ann Avinger, individually and as Trustee of the Paul William Gibson Family Trust, and Heritage Seven, LLC, Respondents, v. AMERIS BANK, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 24 May 2017 |
420 S.C. 536
804 S.E.2d 276
Linda A. GIBSON, formerly known as Linda Ann Avinger, individually and as Trustee of the Paul William Gibson Family Trust, and Heritage Seven, LLC, Respondents,
v.
AMERIS BANK, Appellant.
Opinion No. 5488.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard February 17, 2016
Filed May 24, 2017
Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled August 23, 2017
Robert E. Stepp, Tina Marie Cundari, and Benjamin Rogers Gooding, of Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Desa Ballard and Harvey M. Watson, III, of Ballard & Watson, Attorneys at Law, of West Columbia, for Respondents.
LOCKEMY, C.J.:
A master-in-equity entered judgment in the amount of $2,913,866.00 against Ameris Bank (Ameris) for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted by Linda Gibson, individually and as trustee of the Paul William Gibson Family Trust (the Trust), and Heritage Seven, LLC (collectively, Respondents). On appeal, Ameris argues the master erred (1) in concluding Ameris owed Respondents a fiduciary duty in a $2.8 million commercial loan transaction for a real estate venture that ultimately failed; (2) in concluding Ameris
was liable for negligent misrepresentation because one of Ameris's future employees told Gibson that the transaction was a "good deal" and that the "rents would cover the debt" and because Ameris structured the loan "to include borrowing the down payment of $700,000" such that the apartments were purchased with "100% borrowed money"; (3) in concluding Ameris aided and abetted Gibson's real estate agent in breaching his fiduciary duty; and (4) in awarding actual damages and excessive punitive damages. We reverse.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Ameris commenced this foreclosure action when Respondents failed to repay a $2.8
million loan that Ameris made to Heritage Seven1 for the purchase and renovation of an apartment complex in North Charleston. Respondents answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims of negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The foreclosure action settled, and Galt Valley, LLC—the entity to which Ameris assigned the loan—accepted deeds to the apartment complex and collateral in lieu of foreclosure. Respondents' counterclaims remained, however, and were tried before a master.
In deciding to purchase the apartment complex, Gibson first consulted her real estate and financial advisor, Rolando Villavicencio. On August 28, 2007, Gibson signed a contract to purchase the apartment complex and sought financing from First Reliance Bank (First Reliance). Gibson previously worked with First Reliance in 2005 when First Reliance financed Heritage Seven's purchase of a $2.4 million shopping center in Moncks Corner. Karl Zerbst was the loan officer and Benji Lanier was the analysist for the 2005 shopping center loan from First Reliance.
After seeking financing from First Reliance for the apartment complex, Villavicencio complained to Zerbst that he and Gibson were not being served at First Reliance and wanted to know who could help them obtain financing. According to Gibson, Zerbst told her that she would be better served at Ameris and that he had given her loan documents to Lanier, who had left First Reliance and had begun working at Ameris
on October 11, 2007. Gibson decided to seek financing from Ameris. Her understanding was that Lanier would handle the loan at Ameris and Zerbst would ultimately handle the transaction for her. However, Zerbst testified he never told Gibson or Villavicencio that he was going to work for Ameris.
Zerbst ended his employment with First Reliance on October 5, 2007. Although Zerbst spoke with other banks, including Ameris, regarding potential employment, he remained unemployed from October 5, 2007, until January 11, 2008, when he accepted a written employment offer from Ameris. Zerbst testified he did not work for Ameris and did nothing on Ameris's behalf before January 11, 2008. Marc Bogan, an executive at Ameris, testified Ameris did not encourage Zerbst to refer customers to it or authorize Zerbst to do anything on its behalf before hiring Zerbst in January 2008. Bogan stated no one at Ameris had the ability or right to control Zerbst's conduct before Zerbst formally accepted the employment offer on January 11, 2008. Further, Richard Sturm, the President of Ameris, testified Ameris never told Gibson that Zerbst was acting on Ameris's behalf prior to January 2008.
In mid-October 2007, Gibson spoke with Zerbst about the apartment complex transaction. At that time, Gibson believed Zerbst had left First Reliance but had not yet joined Ameris. Gibson testified she and Zerbst discussed "the wisdom" of her closing the apartment transaction, the appraisal, the location, and the rents she would charge. According to Gibson, Zerbst thought the apartment complex was a "good investment," and Zerbst assured her that the rents would cover the debt.
On November 2, 2007, Respondents and Ameris closed the apartment complex loan. Gibson underwent surgery soon after the loan closing. While Gibson was recuperating, Ameris disbursed funds to Villavicencio when he submitted invoices for work performed in the renovation of the apartment complex. Gibson testified that while she was unable to visit the apartment complex because of her health problems, Villavicencio assured her that "everything was fine, on schedule, on budget." On February 7, 2008, Villavicencio sent an email to Lanier, stating that the project was "moving along as planned" and that he expected the units to be completed and ready for leasing by the next month. When Gibson visited the apartments in March 2008 after recovering from her surgery,
however, she discovered Villavicencio and the contractor were not on speaking
terms, Villavicencio had lied to her about the status of the project, and all three apartment buildings were being renovated at once, instead of one at a time as originally planned. In May 2008, Gibson fired Villavicencio because she believed he had mismanaged her properties and stolen several hundred thousand dollars from her while managing her shopping center and apartment complex. After firing Villavicencio, Gibson managed the apartment complex herself. Gibson also took control of the loan proceeds and arranged for Ameris to place the disbursements in her checking account without receiving invoices.
After Gibson began renting the units, several tenants lost their jobs and were unable to pay rent. Gibson allowed many of the tenants to remain in the apartments and pay a lower rate. Gibson testified the rental income from the apartment complex was insufficient to cover the interest payments on the loan, so she had to use funds from her savings account to pay the remaining interest.
The master determined the relationship between Zerbst and Gibson was more than a creditor and debtor relationship. The master found Zerbst accepted Gibson's trust, Zerbst advised Gibson about the apartment complex transaction, Zerbst was Ameris's agent when Respondents purchased the apartment complex, and Zerbst and Ameris breached their fiduciary duties to Respondents. The master also found Appellant liable for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting Villavicencio's breach of fiduciary duty. The master awarded Respondents actual damages of $1,153,625.00 and punitive damages of $3,551,232.00, for a total damages award of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boulware v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...394 S.E.2d 842 (1990). Nevertheless, a reviewing court is not so constrained when deciding questions of law. See Gibson v. Ameris Bank, 420 S.C. 536, 542, 804 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct. App. 2017) ("[Q]uestions of law may be decided with no particular deference to the trial courts.") (quoting U.S......
-
Boulware v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
...394 S.E.2d 842 (1990). Nevertheless, a reviewing court is not so constrained when deciding questions of law. See Gibson v. Ameris Bank, 420 S.C. 536, 542, 804 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct. App. 2017) ("[Q]uestions of law may be decided with no particular deference to the trial courts.") (quoting U.S......
-
Gibson v. Epting, Appellate Case No. 2016-000432
...million dollars. After Ameris appealed, Gibson engaged different counsel. This court reversed the judgment. See Gibson v. Ameris Bank , 420 S.C. 536, 538, 804 S.E.2d 276, 277 (Ct. App. 2017), cert. denied , S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated Feb. 1, 2018.On July 30, 2013, Gibson brought this action ......
-
Edmonds v. S. Carolina Dep't of Emp't & Workforce
...own factual findings.") Nevertheless, a reviewing court is not so constrained when deciding questions of law. See Gibson v. Ameris Bank, 420 S.C. 536, 542, 804 S.E.2d 276, 279 (Ct. App. 2017) ("[Q]uestions of law may be decided with no particular deference to the trial court....") (quoting ......