Linda Mc Company, Inc. v. Shore, No. 4279.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtKittredge
Citation653 S.E.2d 279
Decision Date26 July 2007
Docket NumberNo. 4279.
PartiesThe LINDA Mc COMPANY, INC., Respondent v. James G. SHORE and Jan Shore, Appellants.
653 S.E.2d 279
The LINDA Mc COMPANY, INC., Respondent
v.
James G. SHORE and Jan Shore, Appellants.
No. 4279.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard June 5, 2007.
Decided July 26, 2007.
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled November 2, 2007.

[653 S.E.2d 280]

John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.

James R. Snell, Jr., of Lexington, for Respondent.

KITTREDGE, J.:


James and Jan Shore (the Shores) appeal the issuance of an order to execute and levy a judgment against them. The Shores contend the judgment was void, the judgment lacked active energy because it was more than ten years old, there was an accord and satisfaction of the debt, and the Linda Mc Company (the Company) should be estopped from denying the accord and satisfaction. We affirm.

I.

On December 8, 1994, the Shores agreed to give the Company a judgment by confession (the Judgment) as settlement of litigation over unpaid sales commissions. The Judgment was entered on June 2, 1995, and provided in relevant part as follows:

1. [The Shores] confess judgment to [the Company] in the amount of $110,000.00 and hereby authorize the Clerk of Court for Lancaster County, South Carolina, to enter judgment in favor of [the Company] against [the Shores], jointly and severally, for such amount, plus such costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by [the Company] in enforcing the unconditional guaranty, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (the "Guaranty"). . . .

2. [The Shores] agree that [the Company] may immediately, by affidavit through its attorneys, set forth the correct amount of this Judgment by adjusting the amount stated above for any credits previously applied

653 S.E.2d 281

by [the Company], and that [the Company] may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a judgment against [the Shores], jointly and severally, in the amount of the total sum due and owing hereunder, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by [the Company] in enforcing the Guaranty, without further notice to [the Shores] and without further authority from [the Shores]; provided, however, that in no event may said sum exceed $110,000.00, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by [the Company] in enforcing the Guaranty. [The Shores] authorize the entry of judgment for the amount due and owing as set out in the affidavit, which judgment will continue to bear interest at the highest legal rate permitted by law. The Judgment by Confession is not contingent upon any other considerations or proceedings and the Court is authorized to enter judgment for the amount set forth in the affidavit.

Sometime after the Judgment was entered, the Shores paid the Company $55,000. On February 20, 2004, the Company wrote a letter (the Agreement) to the Shores wherein it agreed to waive all post-judgment interest if the Company received the remaining $55,000 before May 7, 2004. The Shores paid the Company $26,750 by check dated May 13, 2004.

The sheriff sought to execute on the Judgment, but as is customary, the execution was returned nulla bona.1 On July 29, 2004, the Company filed a petition for supplemental proceedings. The Company countered that the Shores possessed assets subject to execution on the Judgment. On August 3, 2004, the Shores issued a check to the Company in the amount of $28,500. The trial court granted the Company's petition for supplemental proceedings on August 9, 2004, and referred the matter to a special referee.

On October 1, 2004, the referee conducted a hearing to determine whether the Shores had any assets that could be used to satisfy the remaining balance on the Judgment. Prior to the hearing, the Shores filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP, asserting in part that the Judgment was void for lack of an affidavit. The motion was denied on December 1, 2004, as the referee concluded the Judgment was valid and enforceable.

On May 24, 2005, the referee conducted an additional hearing at which the Shores asserted the Agreement had been modified by a phone message Jan left at the Company's attorney's office. This phone message, according to the Shores, constituted an accord and satisfaction of the debt. In particular, Jan testified that in May 2004 she left the Company's attorney two messages explaining the Shores were sending half of the amount due and "if there was any problem with that" to call her and she would "get the other half put together." In the message, she also stated she would pay the outstanding amount at the end of the next quarter, meaning July or August. Additionally, the Shores introduced their phone records showing a call lasting two minutes was placed to the Company's attorney on May 13, 2004. The Company's attorney testified that although his secretary checked and logged his messages, she would often not include the content of the messages. He recalled receiving a couple of phone calls from the Shores but did not know what they were about and never called the Shores back.

The Judgment was subject to execution and levy until June 2, 2005. On June 3, 2005, the referee issued his report to the circuit court finding there had been no accord and satisfaction. The referee also found the Shores owed interest outstanding from the entry of the Judgment to date, as well as costs and attorney's fees. On the same day, June 3, the circuit court issued an order to execute and levy. The Shores did not raise the matter of the Judgment's expiration in the trial court. On June 24, 2005, three weeks after the Judgment expired, the Shores filed a notice of appeal.

II.

A. Validity of the Judgment

The Shores argue that because the Company failed to follow the terms of paragraph 2

653 S.E.2d 282

in the Judgment to fix the amount of Judgment by affidavit, its filing was void and the court was without jurisdiction. We disagree.

The Judgment complies with the statutory requirements of section 15-35-360 of the South Carolina Code (2005). This section provides:

Before a judgment by confession shall be entered a statement in writing must be made and signed by the defendant and verified by his oath to the following effect: (1) It must state the amount for which judgment may be entered and authorize the entry of judgment therefor; (2) If it be for the money due or to become due, it must state concisely the facts out of which it arose and must show that the sum confessed therefor is justly due or to become due; and (3) If it be for the purpose of securing the plaintiff against a contingent liability, it must state concisely the facts constituting the liability and must show that the sum confessed therefor does not exceed the liability.

The Judgment sets forth that the Shores owe "$110,000, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Plaintiff in enforcing the Guaranty." The Judgment was made in writing and signed by the Shores and verified by their oath. Post-judgment interest accrued as a matter of law. The Judgment satisfies the statutory requirements.

The Shores' argument centers on the fact that the Company never filed the affidavit setting forth the amount of Judgment specified in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • The Linda Mc Co. Inc v. Shore, Opinion No. 26878
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Septiembre 2010
    ...(Petitioners) request for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in Linda Mc Company, Inc. v. Shore, 375 S.C. 432, 653 S.E.2d 279 (Ct. App. 2007) affirming the trial court's issuance of an order to execute and levy a judgment against Petitioners.Facts/Procedural Histo......
  • Equivest Fin., LLC v. Ravenel, Appellate Case No. 2015-002257
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 14 Febrero 2018
    ...Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C. , 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ; Linda Mc Co. v. Shore , 375 S.C. 432, 438, 653 S.E.2d 279, 282 (Ct. App. 2007). A party cannot complain of error his own conduct has induced. Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, LLC , 368 S.C. 444, 47......
  • Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nelson, No. 13-1402
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 7 Abril 2014
    ...law dictates that executions of final judgments must issue within ten years. S.C. Code § 15-3-530; see Linda Mc Co., Inc. v. Shore, 653 S.E.2d 279, 282-84 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007). The last payment under the Agreement was due on November 1, 1996, which Nelson accepts as the last date of a poten......
  • In re Buchanan-Lyon, No. 26390.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 5 Noviembre 2007
    ...her misconduct constitutes a violation of Rule 7, RLDE, of Rule 413, SCACR, specifically Rule 7(a)(1) (lawyer shall not violate Rules of 653 S.E.2d 279 Professional Conduct or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Co......
4 cases
  • The Linda Mc Co. Inc v. Shore, Opinion No. 26878
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Septiembre 2010
    ...(Petitioners) request for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision in Linda Mc Company, Inc. v. Shore, 375 S.C. 432, 653 S.E.2d 279 (Ct. App. 2007) affirming the trial court's issuance of an order to execute and levy a judgment against Petitioners.Facts/Procedural Histo......
  • Equivest Fin., LLC v. Ravenel, Appellate Case No. 2015-002257
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 14 Febrero 2018
    ...Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C. , 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ; Linda Mc Co. v. Shore , 375 S.C. 432, 438, 653 S.E.2d 279, 282 (Ct. App. 2007). A party cannot complain of error his own conduct has induced. Erickson v. Jones St. Publishers, LLC , 368 S.C. 444, 47......
  • Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nelson, No. 13-1402
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 7 Abril 2014
    ...law dictates that executions of final judgments must issue within ten years. S.C. Code § 15-3-530; see Linda Mc Co., Inc. v. Shore, 653 S.E.2d 279, 282-84 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007). The last payment under the Agreement was due on November 1, 1996, which Nelson accepts as the last date of a poten......
  • In re Buchanan-Lyon, No. 26390.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 5 Noviembre 2007
    ...her misconduct constitutes a violation of Rule 7, RLDE, of Rule 413, SCACR, specifically Rule 7(a)(1) (lawyer shall not violate Rules of 653 S.E.2d 279 Professional Conduct or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of We accept the Agreement for Discipline by Co......

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