RIM ASSOCIATES v. Blackwell
Decision Date | 23 February 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 3747.,3747. |
Citation | 597 S.E.2d 152,359 S.C. 170 |
Parties | RIM ASSOCIATES, a South Carolina general partnership, Respondent, v. John E. BLACKWELL, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
G. Dana Sinkler, Mark S. Sharpe, Paul E. Tinkler, and R. Bruce Wallace, all of Charleston, for Appellant.
Richard S. Rosen and Daniel F. Blanchard, III, both of Charleston, for Respondent.
RIM Associates, a South Carolina general partnership, sued John Blackwell, a partner, seeking contribution for a partnership debt the partnership had incurred as a result of a debt owed to Blackwell. The trial court ordered Blackwell to make a contribution. We reverse.
John Blackwell's company, R.I. of North Charleston ("R.I."), owned a Ramada Inn. In 1985, Everett Smith, Joe Edens and James Finley ("the partners") decided to purchase the hotel. Blackwell agreed to sell the hotel for 4.575 million dollars. As part of the purchase price, R.I. accepted a note of 1.3 million dollars ("the Blackwell note"). Blackwell also received a twenty-five percent partnership interest in RIM Associates ("RIM"), the partnership formed by Blackwell and the partners "to invest in, own, and operate" the hotel. The partners financed the transaction by taking out a bank loan for the 3.275 million dollar balance owed to Blackwell. The partners did not place any capital in the transaction, but they guaranteed seventy-five percent of the Blackwell note.
RIM fell behind on its payments on the Blackwell note and, in 1989, Blackwell and RIM renegotiated its terms. Blackwell extended the maturity date of the Blackwell note and the partners guaranteed it one hundred percent. The parties contemporaneously entered into an indemnification agreement ("the 1989 agreement") that provided in part:
(emphasis added).
Notwithstanding the 1989 agreement, RIM again fell behind on its payments. In 1997, Blackwell sued the partners for repayment as guarantors of the Blackwell note. The partners brought a third party complaint against RIM, seeking indemnification for the amounts due under the Blackwell note. The partners then caused RIM to bring suit against Blackwell seeking contribution from him in case RIM was required to indemnify the partners.
The parties reached a settlement in April or June of 1999 ("the 1999 settlement"). The 1999 settlement provided in part:
(emphasis added).
Following the court-ordered 1999 settlement, Blackwell moved to amend the order to include that "John Blackwell cannot be required to respond to a capital call as a result of the settlement found by the Court." The judge refused, reasoning that "[the] issue may have been raised by [Blackwell] but it is a post-settlement issue and not properly before this court at this time." On July 14, Edens and Smith paid two million dollars pursuant to the 1999 settlement. Finley did not contribute any funds.2
On August 5, the trial judge ordered "[t]he action ... ended and dismissed with prejudice as [to] all parties." RIM moved to amend the order. As a result, the trial judge rescinded that order and issued a second order that dismissed with prejudice all causes of action "by and against" Blackwell "asserted within the action," all claims by RIM "in the Amended Fourth Party Complaint," and all actions by Blackwell. The trial judge also dismissed all actions by the individual partners Eden, Smith, and Finley against RIM but without prejudice.
In April 2000, RIM sued Blackwell. RIM's Amended Complaint claimed breach of the partnership agreement and sought contribution and specific performance. Following a bench trial, the court found:
The trial judge ruled that Blackwell had breached his contractual and statutory obligations to make contributions under the partnership agreement and the South Carolina Uniform Partnership Act. Blackwell appeals.
Blackwell raises eight exceptions to the trial judge's rulings, but those exceptions can be condensed in the following six issues:
RIM alleges two causes of action against Blackwell. RIM characterizes them as "Contribution" and "Breach of Contract / Specific Performance." However, an appellate court is not bound by a party's characterization of the actions. Klippel v. Mid-Carolina Oil, Inc., 303 S.C. 127, 129, 399 S.E.2d 163, 164 (Ct.App.1990) (citing Ariail v. Ariail, 295 S.C. 486, 491, 369 S.E.2d 146, 149 (Ct.App.1988)). Whether an action is at law or in equity is determined by the main purpose of the suit. Mortgage Recovery Fund-Riverbend, Ltd. v. Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, 327 S.C. 491, 493, 489 S.E.2d 655, 656 (Ct.App.1997) (citing Baughman v. AT & T, 298 S.C. 127, 130, 378 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1989)). The court should determine the main purpose of an action from the body of the complaint. Carjow, LLC v. Simmons, 349 S.C. 514, 518, 563 S.E.2d 359, 362 (Ct.App.2002) ( ). Whether the action is one at law or in equity is determined by the nature of the pleadings and the character of the relief sought. In re Estate of Holden, 343 S.C. 267, 278, 539 S.E.2d 703, 709 (2000) ( ).
Notwithstanding RIM's characterization of its complaint, RIM alleges only one single cause of action for breach of contract and requests the remedy of specific performance.3 An action for specific performance lies in equity.4Ingram v. Kasey's Assocs., 340 S.C. 98, 105, 531 S.E.2d 287, 290 (2000); see also Barnacle Broadcasting, Inc. v. Baker Broadcasting, Inc., 343 S.C. 140, 146, 538 S.E.2d 672, 675 (Ct.App.2000)
(. ) Because the action is in equity, the appellate court "may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence" in reviewing such an action. Id.
Blackwell argues that the trial judge erred in ruling that RIM was authorized to bring this action against Blackwell. We disagree.
The partnership agreement states that "[i]f any Partner fails to make contributions to capital as provided for by the terms of this Agreement, the remaining Partners who are not in default shall have the right to seek and obtain damages from the defaulting Partner...." Blackwell argues that language allows only the partners, and not the partnership, to sue Blackwell for damages and specific performance. However, the partnership agreement was signed in 1985, at a time when partnerships could not bring an action in their own name. See Haddock Flying Serv. v. Tisdale, 288 S.C. 62, 64, 339 S.E.2d 525, 526 (Ct.App.1986)
(...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alford v. Tamsberg
... ... first suit was dismissed with prejudice which served as an ... adjudication on the merits. See RIM Assocs. v ... Blackwell , 359 S.C. 170, 182, 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct ... App. 2004) (quoting Nelson v. QHG of S.C., Inc., 354 ... S.C. 290, 311, 580 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Delta Apparel, Inc. v. Farina
...must be pled at trial to be pursued on appeal. An affirmative defense is waived if not pled.” (citing RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182, 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct.App.2004))); see also Duckett v. Goforth, 374 S.C. 446, 465, 649 S.E.2d 72, 82 (Ct.App.2007) (stating a party cannot rai......
-
Andrews v. Broom
... ... Andrews a chance to amend his complaint despite the dismissal ... with prejudice. See RIM Assocs. v. Blackwell, 359 ... S.C. 170, 182, 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A ... case that is dismissed 'with prejudice' indicates ... an ... ...
-
Miller v. Miller
...Indian Nation v. State, 407 S.C. at 538, 756 S.E.2d at 907 ; Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. at 172, 712 S.E.2d at 412 ; RIM Assoc. v. Blackwell, 359 S.C. 170, 182, 597 S.E.2d 152, 159 ; Plum Creek Dev. Co. v. City of Conway, 334 S.C. at 34, 512 S.E.2d at 109 ). In determining whether there is ident......