Mathis v. Brown & Brown Of South Carolina Inc
| Decision Date | 09 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 26851.,26851. |
| Citation | 389 S.C. 299,698 S.E.2d 773 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Blair MATHIS, Respondent,v.BROWN & BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Appellant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Jeffrey A. Lehrer and S. Clay Keim, both of Ford & Harrison, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.
Robert M. Barrett, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
John Green Creech, of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, of Greenville, for Amicus Curiae SC Chamber of Commerce.
Nikole Setzler Mergo, of Nexsen Pruet, of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae SC Hospital Association.
This is an appeal from a trial court's order awarding damages under claims for breach of contract and violation of the Payment of Wages Act. Appellant Brown & Brown of South Carolina (Appellant) contends the trial court erred (1) in finding it breached its contract with Respondent Blair Mathis (Mathis); (2) in finding it violated the Payment of Wages Act; (3) in applying the Payment of Wages Act to prospective wages; (4) in failing to comply with Rule 52, SCRCP; and (5) in denying Appellant's motion for change of venue. We affirm on all issues with the exception of the trial court's holding that the Payment of Wages Act applies to prospective wages.
Mathis was employed as an account executive and producer for Reidman Insurance in Spartanburg, which was acquired by Appellant during Mathis's employment. In 2003, Mathis left employment with Appellant and went to work with a company that would later become Carolina First.
In 2004, Mathis received a call from an acquaintance, Herb McBride, the Profit Center Manager for Appellant's Greenville office. The two had lunch a number of times and began to discuss Mathis returning to work for Appellant. In August 2004, McBride verbally offered Mathis a salary of $90,000 per year for the first year of employment with Appellant, as well as a 20% commission on new business generated by Mathis. Additionally, Mathis would be assigned the $300,000 book of business of a departing producer and, in six months, would be named the Sales Manager. Mathis declined the offer.
McBride later laid out a new offer, which he then communicated in an e-mail (the McBride e-mail) which provided in part:
Hyatt Brown was the CEO of Appellant's corporate office. Mathis testified that McBride explained that Hyatt Brown was involved through “corporate assistance,” which meant that corporate headquarters was willing to pay part of Mathis's salary. After further negotiations, on September 17, 2004, Mathis accepted the offer and sent his resignation letter to Carolina First. Mathis began work on September 27, 2004. Two days later, he signed an Employment Agreement.
Mathis testified that he arrived for work one morning and found a blank copy of a corporate assistance form on his chair with a note from McBride saying that they needed to discuss the document. Mathis reviewed the document and noticed that it contained language providing for certain production goals and consequences for failing to meet the goals. According to Mathis, he objected to McBride that such contingencies were not part of his contract deal to which McBride responded that Mathis's salary would be unaffected by any failure to meet the goals.
In February 2005, McBride was replaced as Profit Center Manager by Clay Collins. Mathis testified that he met with Collins and brought his correspondence and employee records. Collins explained that he would not need a sales manager as he would be handling those duties himself. Mathis testified that he told Collins that he expected to have his job offer honored, to which Collins responded that he needed time to get acclimated to the new job and they would discuss the matter later.
In an e-mail in May 2005, Collins placed limits on expense accounts which were inconsistent with Mathis's agreement with McBride. In July 2005, Collins asked to meet with Mathis and informed him that, due to his failure to meet corporate assistance goals, he would reduce Mathis's salary to $90,000. According to Mathis, he told Collins that “it was wrong” and that the two of them needed to speak with McBride, but Collins declined to do so. Mathis testified that he then turned to McBride who explained that he could not help Mathis. Beginning August 8, Appellant paid Mathis at the reduced salary.
In January 2006, Collins set new goals for Mathis for the coming year and warned that “[a]ny future short falls in new business and growth to your book will certainly have an impact on your compensation.” Mathis responded with a letter in which he detailed his negotiations with McBride and the terms set forth in the e-mails from McBride. In a memo dated March 10, 2006, Collins again outlined payment reductions and extended a termination offer to Mathis. The memo provided, in part:
In an email sent by Herb McBride (Profit Center Manager at the time) in September 2004, it was agreed that you would earn $110,000 in the first year and $120,000 in the second year of employment. In return for full cooperation with reasonable requests made by me, I am prepared to continue paying your current bi-weekly draw of $3,461.54 through March 31, 2006. During this time, you will be expected to meet with all current clients and future prospects currently in inventory in order to make full introductions to the new agent handling the account or myself as the Profit Center Manager. In return, I will provide you with a severance package totaling $16,124.86 which is equivalent to the pro-rata difference of $110,000 Year 1 and $120,000 Year 2 salaries that were originally agreed upon versus amounts paid through March 31, 2006.
Mathis did not respond to the offer and was terminated. Mathis then instituted this action.
The trial court found a two-year contract of employment existed between the parties and that Appellant breached the terms of the contract by reducing Mathis's pay. The court further found that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the wages due Mathis and that Appellant violated the Payment of Wages Act by failing to pay Mathis the contract amount. Pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, the trial court awarded Mathis three times the unpaid wages of his two-year contract, plus attorney's fees. See S.C.Code Ann. § 41-10-80(C) (Supp.2005). The award was based on the difference between the reduced wages and the contractual compensation during the period Mathis remained employed, plus the wages he would have earned for the remaining term of the contract, less post-termination wages earned from other employment during that term. Appellant appealed, contesting a number of issues from the trial court.
Actions seeking damages for breach of contract and actions for violation of the Payment of Wages Act are actions at law. See McCall v. IKON, 380 S.C. 649, 657, 670 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2008); Ross v. Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 371 S.C. 464, 468, 639 S.E.2d 460, 462 (Ct.App.2006). In an action at law tried without a jury, the trial judge's findings have the force and effect of a jury verdict upon the issues and are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence. See Beheler v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 252 S.C. 530, 535, 167 S.E.2d 436, 438 (1969). Accordingly, this Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by competent evidence and correcting errors of law. See Temple v. Tec-Fab, Inc., 381 S.C. 597, 600, 675 S.E.2d 414, 415 (2009).
II. Did the trial court err in finding that Appellant violated the Payment of Wages Act?
Appellant does not dispute that a contract was created by the McBride e-mail, but instead contends that it did not breach the contract for the following reasons: (1) the McBride e-mail did not establish a term contract but rather one of indefinite duration; (2) Mathis was employed “at will”; (3) even if the McBride e-mail established a term contract, Mathis was estopped from raising any claims for breach by continuing to work following the compensation change; and (4) the contract was voidable because it was induced by Mathis's misrepresentations as to the size of his business at Carolina First. We address each argument in turn.
Appellant contends that the McBride e-mail did not create a contract of definite term. Appellant therefore argues that it was free to reduce Mathis's pay without violating the contract. We find there is competent evidence to support the trial court's finding that the e-mail created a contract of definite term.
Appellant correctly notes that “ ‘[i]n order for a contract to be valid and enforceable, the parties must have a meeting of the minds as to all essential and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhoades v. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC
...925 (1999) ; see also Barron v. Lab. Finders of S.C. , 393 S.C. 609, 713 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2011) (citing Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc. , 389 S.C. 299, 698 S.E.2d 773, 778 (2010) ). The Supreme Court of South Carolina has specifically endorsed this doctrine as an "incentive to economi......
-
Spirax Sarco, Inc. v. SSI Eng'g, Inc.
...Carolina employer discharges an employee, it must timely pay that employee "all wages due." See also Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 698 S.E.2d 773, 781 (2010). The S.C. Wages Act defines the term "wages" as "all amounts at which labor rendered is recompensed, whether t......
-
Hueble v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res.
...of Hueble's case, we interpret it to address all the claims involved—including the § 1983 action. See Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 309, 698 S.E.2d 773, 778 (2010) (finding if the language of a contract creates an ambiguity, a court will construe any doubt and ambigui......
-
Barton v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc.
...Carolina employer discharges an employee, it must timely pay that employee “all wages due.” See also Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 698 S.E.2d 773, 781 (2010). The S.C. Wages Act defines the term “wages” as “all amounts at which labor rendered is recompensed, whether t......
-
An Employer's Guide to Navigating the Payment of Wages and Garnishments
...at 484. [9] Id. [10] Id. at 9-10, 738 S.E.2d at 485. [11] Id. at 29, 738S.E.2dat495. [12] Id. [13] Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C, Inc., 389 S.C. 299, 698 S.E.2d 773 (2010). [14] Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181 (4 th Cir. 2007). [15] S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-50 (Supp. 2013). [16] S.C......