Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 23668
| Decision Date | 20 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23668,23668 |
| Citation | 419 S.E.2d 217,308 S.C. 467 |
| Parties | RIEDMAN CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GREENVILLE STEEL STRUCTURES, INC., Respondent. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
C. Timothy Sullivan, Greenville, for appellant.
H. Clayton Walker, Jr., of Baker, Barwick, Ravenel & Bender, Columbia, and Harry C. Walker, Greenville, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order granting respondent's motion to dismiss. The issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant's action was barred by res judicata. We affirm.
On January 9, 1989, appellant Riedman Corporation (Riedman) brought an action against respondent Greenville Steel Structures, Inc. (Greenville), alleging that Greenville owed it $5,722.00 in premiums for several insurance policies. Greenville answered and counterclaimed alleging that Riedman owed it $6,605.00 for excess premiums paid on several policies. The case was called for trial on January 16, 1990, by Judge McLeod. Riedman made a motion for a continuance which was denied. Judge McLeod, however, granted Riedman a motion made pursuant to Rule 40(c)(3), SCRCP, to strike the action from the calendar with leave to restore, and then proceeded to try Greenville's counterclaim. Greenville was awarded $6,420.50.
On the same day, Judge Pyle signed the written order granting Riedman relief under Rule 40(c)(3) with leave to restore within one year. On January 16, 1991, Judge Pyle restored Riedman's action to the calendar. Greenville filed a motion to dismiss Riedman's action under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, on the ground that it was barred by res judicata because the counterclaim had been tried on January 16, 1990. Judge Simmons granted Greenville's motion and Riedman now appeals that order.
Riedman's complaint was based on the alleged failure of Greenville to pay premiums for several insurance policies. Greenville counterclaimed on the ground that it had paid Riedman $6,605.00 in excess of the premiums because of cancellations, adjustments, and modifications of several policies. As Riedman concedes, the prime issue is one of accounting. Riedman, however, claims that Judge McLeod only heard one side of the accounting issue when he tried the counterclaim. Riedman did not appeal from the judgment entered for Greenville on the counterclaim.
During the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Riedman stated that Greenville had proved a credit of $6,605.00 but that the amount Riedman alleged in its complaint may have already been offset by the $6,605.00. Riedman stated it did not know how it had reached the $5,722.00 figure it claimed in its complaint because it did not have its records when the counterclaim was tried. Riedman argued that it had a right to put its records in evidence and determine any adjustments.
To establish res judicata, three elements must be shown: (1) identity of the parties; (2) identity of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toney v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the issue in the former suit. ( Id. (citing Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 308 S.C. 467, 419 S.E.2d 217, 218 (1992)).) In this regard, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not dispute that the first two elements we......
-
Toney v. Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
...of the parties; (2) identity of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the issue in the former suit. Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 419 S.E.2d 217 (S.C. 1992); Sealy v. Dodge, 347 S.E.2d 504 (S.C. 1986). Here, res judicata bars this action as all three elements of ......
-
Sea Cabin v. City of North Myrtle Beach
...action between those parties. Sub-Zero Freezer Co. v. R.J. Clarkson Co., 417 S.E.2d 569 (S.C.1992). Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 419 S.E.2d 217, 218 (S.C.1992). The doctrine of res judicata also serves to bar relitigation of a special board's determination of a disput......
-
Pressley v. McMaster
...(2) identity of the subject matter; and (3) adjudication of the issue in the former suit." Id. (citing Riedman Corp. v. Greenville Steel Structures, Inc., 308 S.C. 467 (S.C. 1992); Sealy v. Dodge, 289 S.C. 543 (S.C. 1986)). In his Report regarding Petitioner's SCTCA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cla......