Recco Tape and Label Co., Inc. v. Barfield

Decision Date02 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 23979,23979
Citation312 S.C. 214,439 S.E.2d 838
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesRECCO TAPE AND LABEL COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. John R. BARFIELD and John W. Etters, Of Whom John R. Barfield is Appellant. . Heard

Patrick J. Frawley, of Bouknight, Nicholson, Davis, Frawley & Anderson, Lexington, for appellant.

S. Jahue Moore and J. Mark Taylor, of Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Allen, Deneen & Taylor, West Columbia, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

Recco Tape and Label Co., Inc. (Recco) commenced this action against John Barfield alleging conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Barfield filed a cross-complaint adding John Etters as a co-defendant. Before closing arguments, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Etters and dismissed him as a party. The jury returned a verdict of $795,000 actual damages in favor of Recco. Barfield appealed the jury verdict.

FACTS

The defendant Etters was the sole shareholder, director, and officer of Recco Inc. The appellant Barfield was hired as the corporate bookkeeper and ultimately was promoted to general manager and vice president and appointed to the board of directors. Barfield received an annual base salary plus a bonus of one-third of the ending balance in the business bank account. This salary arrangement was a verbal agreement between Barfield and Etters. Etters confirmed the existence of the bonus agreement. He testified that he never agreed to limit the amount of funds he took out of the company account.

Both Etters and Barfield acknowledged that a considerable amount of corporate assets were used for nonbusiness purposes. At trial, documentary evidence established that Barfield withdrew $794,995.50 from Recco accounts over a period of seven years. Barfield claimed that Etters was aware that he was using corporate funds and told him to take the funds as compensation for the reduction in his bonus. Conversely, Etters claimed that the funds were taken without his knowledge and authority.

DISCUSSION

Appellant raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends that the trial judge erroneously excluded Etters' personal financial statements and income tax returns. We disagree.

Barfield sought to introduce evidence that Etters underreported his personal income for tax purposes and significantly reduced business liquid assets in the two-year period preceding his divorce. Barfield argued that it was important to introduce Etters' tax returns to go to the question of veracity of other statements made. The trial judge ruled that evidence of Etters' underreporting of income on his tax returns and depletion of corporate assets was not relevant to whether Barfield misappropriated corporate funds.

In order for this Court to reverse the trial court for erroneously excluding evidence, Appellant must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice. First State Savings and Loan v. Phelps, 299 S.C. 441, 385 S.E.2d 821 (1989). To meet the first part of the two prong test, Barfield must show that the proffered evidence was relevant. Relevancy of evidence means the logical relation between the proposed evidence and a fact to be established. Winburn v. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins., 261 S.C. 568, 201 S.E.2d 372 (1973); Bonaparte v. Floyd, 291 S.C. 427, 354 S.E.2d 40 (Ct.App.1987).

The main issue at trial was whether Barfield converted substantial corporate funds to his own use. We agree with the trial judge that evidence that Etters devalued the corporation and filed erroneous tax returns was not relevant to whether Barfield had authorization to take corporate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Fields v. REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR. ORANGEBURG
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 2005
    ...motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, an issue not raised in this appeal. 4. E.g. Recco Tape Label Co. v. Barfield, 312 S.C. 214, 217, 439 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1994) (any error in exclusion of co-defendant's financial statements was harmless, given that such evidence would have b......
  • Holroyd v. Requa, 3852.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 9 Agosto 2004
    ...warrant reversal, however, Requa "must show both the error of the ruling and the resulting prejudice." Recco Tape & Label Co. v. Barfield, 312 S.C. 214, 216, 439 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1994). A. Admission of Evidence as to Unpaid Medical Bills and Premiums Requa argues the trial court erred by ad......
  • Burroughs v. Worsham
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 9 Diciembre 2002
    ...To warrant reversal, the appellant "must show both the error of the ruling and resulting prejudice." Recco Tape and Label Co. v. Barfield, 312 S.C. 214, 216, 439 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1994); see also Carlyle v. Tuomey Hosp., 305 S.C. 187, 407 S.E.2d 630 (1991) (proof that an error caused the app......
  • State v. Crocker, 4038.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 2005
    ... ... by communicating their intent to do so to all co-conspirators). The record here is devoid of any ... Recco Tape & Label Co., Inc. v. Barfield, 312 S.C ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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