Meehan v. Meehan, 2006-UP-088

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: HEARN, C.J.
• Parties: John Thomas Meehan, Jr., Appellant, v. Jerry Andrew Meehan, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; Robert N. Newton, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; James B. Rogers, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; A South Carolina Limited Liability Company; GrandSouth Bancorporation; Mountainbank; and Janet Elizabeth Kelly Dorado, Defendants, of whom Jerry Andrew Meehan, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; Robert N. Newton, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; James B. Rogers, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; A South Carolina Limited Liability Company; GrandSouth Bancorporation; and Janet Elizabeth Kelly Dorado, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 10 February 2006
• Docket Number: 2006-UP-088

John Thomas Meehan, Jr., Appellant,
v.
Jerry Andrew Meehan, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; Robert N. Newton, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; James B. Rogers, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; A South Carolina Limited Liability Company; GrandSouth Bancorporation; Mountainbank; and Janet Elizabeth Kelly Dorado, Defendants, of whom Jerry Andrew Meehan, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; Robert N. Newton, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; James B. Rogers, individually and as member of Lebanon Road, LLC; A South Carolina Limited Liability Company; GrandSouth Bancorporation; and Janet Elizabeth Kelly Dorado, Respondents.

No. 2006-UP-088

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

February 10, 2006

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

Heard January 11, 2006

Appeal From Anderson County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Robert Wallis Cone, of Greenwood, for Appellant.

D. Sean Faulkner, of Greenville, Harold P. Threlkeld and J. Calhoun Pruitt, Jr., of Anderson, for Respondents.

HEARN, C.J.

John Thomas Meehan, Jr. appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his action for lack of standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. We affirm.

FACTS

The respondents, Jerry Andrew Meehan (Jerry) and Janet Elizabeth Kelly Dorado (Janet), and the appellant, John Thomas Meehan, Jr. (Meehan), are the children of Mary Meehan (Mother), who is not a party to this action. Mother owned several large parcels of real estate located in Pendleton, South Carolina. Two of those parcels, the Dickson Place tract and the Harris Place tract, are directly involved in this dispute. The Dickson Place property contains approximately 115 acres and the Harris Place property consists of 70.2 acres. In May of 1983, Mother conveyed fee simple title to Dickson Place to Jerry. In 2003, Mother conveyed fee simple title to Harris Place to Jerry and Janet.

In May 2003, Jerry conveyed his entire interest in Dickson Place plus an additional 18.6 acres to Lebanon Road, LLC, for the purchase price of $554, 000. Lebanon Road simultaneously granted GrandSouth Bank a first mortgage on the property acquired from Jerry. ^[1] After mortgaging the Harris Place property, Jerry and Janet re-conveyed the property back to Mother who then sold the property to Robert Newton. At no time did Meehan acquire an interest in either Dickson Place or Harris Place.

Meehan claims Mother made numerous verbal and written representations to him that he would receive Dickson Place as his sole property either during Mother's lifetime or upon her death. Meehan relies on a 2001 letter in which Mother promised him Dickson Place. He also claims Jerry and Janet mortgaged Harris Place against Mother's wishes. According to Meehan, Mother stated that she wanted the Harris Place property to be divided equally between her three children.

Meehan filed this action to set aside the deeds of conveyance to Jerry and Janet from Mother based on fraud, duress, and undue influence. Meehan also sought a constructive trust for his benefit on Dickson Place and Harris Place because Mother promised or intended to convey an interest in both to him. The circuit court dismissed, finding Meehan lacked the standing necessary to bring the actions. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a defendant may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201, 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003). A trial judge may dismiss a claim when the defendant demonstrates the plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in the pleadings. Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227, 233, 553 S.E.2d 496, 500 (Ct. App. 2001). Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the circuit court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint. Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 300, 457 S.E.2d 601, 602-03 (1995). Upon review of a dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the appellate court applies the same standard of review implemented by the circuit court. Doe v. Marion, 361 S.C. 463, 470, 605 S.E.2d 556, 560 (Ct. App. 2004).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Meehan argues the circuit court erred in dismissing his action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. Specifically, Meehan contends the circuit court erred in finding he lacked the standing necessary to maintain the action. ^[2] We disagree.

To have standing, one must have a personal stake in the subject matter of the lawsuit; one must be a real party in interest. Charleston County Sch. Dist. v. Charleston County Election Comm'n, 336 S.C. 174, 181, 519 S.E.2d 567, 571 (1999). A real party in interest is one who has a real, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the action, as opposed to one who has only a nominal or technical interest in the action.” Anchor Point, Inc. v. Shoals Sewer Co., 308 S.C. 422, 428, 418 S.E.2d 546, 549 (1992). A private person does not have standing unless he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, prejudice from an executive or legislative action. Baird v. Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 530, 511 S.E.2d 69, 75...