Piedmont Public Service Dist. v. Cowart, No. 24521
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOORE; FINNEY |
| Citation | 324 S.C. 239,478 S.E.2d 836 |
| Decision Date | 17 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 24521 |
| Parties | PIEDMONT PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Respondent, v. Douglas W. COWART, Petitioner. . Heard |
Page 836
v.
Douglas W. COWART, Petitioner.
Decided Nov. 12, 1996.
Page 837
Deborah R.J. Shupe, of Berry, Adams, Quackenbush & Dunbar, P.A., and Herbert W. Louthian, Jr., of Louthian & Louthian, Columbia, for petitioner.
Michael A. Farry and Vance B. Drawdy, both of Horton, Drawdy, Ward & Johnson, P.A., Greenville, for respondent.
MOORE, Justice.
This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision 1 affirming the circuit court's ruling that petitioner Cowart's employment contract with respondent (District) was not binding on District's successor commissioners. We affirm.
On November 1, 1984, District's four commissioners signed a contract with Cowart for him to serve as administrator for a twenty-year period. This employment contract was subsequently modified 2 to add a severance clause allowing District to fire Cowart with or without cause only upon five years' notice or the payment of five years' severance pay.
By November 12, 1992, District's entire board of commissioners had changed. The new commissioners voted to terminate Cowart without cause and pay him his annual salary of $37,781.40 for the next five years as required under the severance clause of the employment contract. They made an immediate payment of $30,000. Several weeks later, 3 District informed Cowart that the vote to terminate him had been taken in violation of the Freedom of Information Act and was therefore rescinded. It directed Cowart to return the $30,000 payment which he refused to do. District then terminated Cowart for insubordination.
District subsequently commenced this action seeking a declaration the employment contract with Cowart was void and demanding a return of the $30,000 payment. The trial judge granted District's motion for summary judgment. He found District properly rescinded Cowart's termination because of the Freedom of Information Act violation. 4 Further, he found Cowart's insubordination was just cause for termination and the employment contract, including the five-year severance clause, was void. Accordingly, he ordered Cowart to pay District $30,000 with pre-judgment interest.
Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals relied on Newman v. McCullough, 212 S.C. 17, 46 S.E.2d 252 (1948), and found the employment contract was not binding on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Anderson Cnty., No. 5072.
...district and its administrator that required five years' severance pay. 319 S.C. 124, 459 S.E.2d 876 (Ct.App.1995)( Cowart I ),aff'd,324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996)( Cowart II ). Relying on [402 S.C. 442]Newman v. McCullough, 212 S.C. 17, 46 S.E.2d 252 (1948), which involved an employme......
-
Anderson Cnty. v. Joey Preston & the S.C. Ret. Sys., Opinion No. 5490.
...Bright also advised the committee that, under our supreme court's ruling in Piedmont Public Service District v. Cowart (Cowart II ), 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996), the County had a good argument that Preston's Employment Agreement was voidable—and therefore, had no value—because it pu......
-
Cunningham v. Anderson Cnty., Appellate Case No. 2011-194209
...district and its administrator that required five years' severance pay. 319 S.C. 124, 459 S.E.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1995) (Cowart I), aff'd, 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996) (Cowart II"). Relying on Newman v. McCullough, 212 S.C. 17, 46 S.E.2d 252 (1948), which involved an employment contract......
-
Bishop v. City of Columbia, Appellate Case No. 2010-176227
...sustain a contract claim. See Piedmont Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Cowart, 319 S.C. 124, 131, 459 S.E.2d 876, 880Page 12(Ct. App. 1995), aff'd by 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996). Further cases hold that estoppel will not lie against a governmental entity when the government's employee gives err......
-
Cunningham v. Anderson Cnty., No. 5072.
...district and its administrator that required five years' severance pay. 319 S.C. 124, 459 S.E.2d 876 (Ct.App.1995)( Cowart I ),aff'd,324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996)( Cowart II ). Relying on [402 S.C. 442]Newman v. McCullough, 212 S.C. 17, 46 S.E.2d 252 (1948), which involved an employme......
-
Anderson Cnty. v. Joey Preston & the S.C. Ret. Sys., Opinion No. 5490.
...Bright also advised the committee that, under our supreme court's ruling in Piedmont Public Service District v. Cowart (Cowart II ), 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996), the County had a good argument that Preston's Employment Agreement was voidable—and therefore, had no value—because it pu......
-
Cunningham v. Anderson Cnty., Appellate Case No. 2011-194209
...district and its administrator that required five years' severance pay. 319 S.C. 124, 459 S.E.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1995) (Cowart I), aff'd, 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996) (Cowart II"). Relying on Newman v. McCullough, 212 S.C. 17, 46 S.E.2d 252 (1948), which involved an employment contract......
-
Bishop v. City of Columbia, Appellate Case No. 2010-176227
...sustain a contract claim. See Piedmont Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Cowart, 319 S.C. 124, 131, 459 S.E.2d 876, 880Page 12(Ct. App. 1995), aff'd by 324 S.C. 239, 478 S.E.2d 836 (1996). Further cases hold that estoppel will not lie against a governmental entity when the government's employee gives err......