Powers v. Rizan Props.

• Decision Date: 07 December 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-UP-440
• Parties: Jerry Powers, Appellant, v. Rizan Properties, LLC, Anthony Pearson, and Tiesha Dash, Defendants, Of which Rizan Properties, LLC is the Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2021-000218
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Jerry Powers, Appellant, v. Rizan Properties, LLC, Anthony Pearson, and Tiesha Dash, Defendants,

Of which Rizan Properties, LLC is the Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2021-000218

No. 2022-UP-440

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

December 7, 2022

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted November 17, 2022

Appeal From Greenville County Charles B. Simmons, Jr. Master-in-Equity

Mark Paget Fessler, of S.C. Legal Services, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Knox L. Haynsworth, III, of Brown Massey Evans McLeod &amp Haynsworth, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this action to enforce an option to purchase residential real property, Jerry Powers appeals the grant of summary judgment to Rizan Properties LLC (Rizan), the grantor of the option, and the denial of his motion for summary judgment. The Master-in-Equity held the option was no longer in effect because Powers had breached a lease of the same property by failing to pay rent for over eleven months, vacating the premises, and surrendering the keys to the property to Rizan's agents. We reverse and remand.

1. We agree with the Master that the option and lease must be read together because the two documents were executed contemporaneously by the same parties and concerned the same subject matter. See Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388 396, 608 S.E.2d 849, 852-53 (2005) ("This [c]ourt has held that when multiple documents are executed contemporaneously in the course of and as part of the same transaction, the [c]ourt may consider and construe the instruments together in order to ascertain the intention of the parties and the terms of the agreement."). Furthermore, there was no evidence the parties intended the lease and option to be considered and construed separately. See Café Assocs, Ltd.. v. Gerngross, 305 S.C. 6, 10, 405 S.E.2d 162, 164 (1991) ("The general rule is that, in the absence of anything indicating a contrary intention, where instruments are executed at the same time, by the same parties, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction, the Court will consider and construe them together.").

2. However, we hold Powers's option to purchase the subject property remained enforceable under the contract terms notwithstanding his alleged breach of the lease and his decision to vacate the property. See McPherson v. J.E Sirrine & Co., 206 S.C. 183, 204, 33 S.E.2d 501, 509 (1945) (stating the meaning of a clear and unequivocal contract is determined from the contents of the writing itself and no meaning can be given to the contract other than what is stated within the four corners of the instrument). Here, neither document indicated Powers's right to exercise his option to purchase the property was contingent on his compliance with the lease. Therefore, we hold the...