Spence v. Wingate
| Decision Date | 09 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 26613.,26613. |
| Citation | 674 S.E.2d 169,381 S.C. 487 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Deborah W. SPENCE, Individually, and on behalf of the Estate of Floyd W. Spence, Petitioner, v. Kenneth B. WINGATE, Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, P.A., and Robert P. Wilkins, Jr., Defendants, of whom Kenneth B. Wingate and Sweeny Wingate & Barrow, P.A. are Respondents. |
Petitioner filed a legal malpractice action against respondents. The trial judge granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether respondents owed petitioner a fiduciary duty with respect to a congressional life insurance policy issued to petitioner's late husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the issue was not preserved for review. Spence v. Wingate, 378 S.C. 486, 663 S.E.2d 70 (Ct.App.2008). We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with further briefing, reverse the Court of Appeals' opinion, and remand the matter to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the merits of petitioner's arguments.
At the hearing on respondents' motion for summary judgment, respondents argued they were entitled to summary judgment because there existed no attorney-client relationship between respondents and petitioner; therefore, respondents owed no duty to petitioner. Petitioner countered that she was a former client of respondents, and maintained respondents owed her a fiduciary duty based on the relationship. The trial judge granted summary judgment, finding respondents "owed no duty or obligation" to petitioner.
The Court of Appeals held the issue was not preserved for review because petitioner failed to file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment. The Court of Appeals found the argument was not preserved because the trial judge did not mention petitioner's alternative theory of liability that, as a former client of respondents, she had a continuing fiduciary relationship with respondents.
We hold the Court of Appeals erred in finding the issue was not preserved for appeal. The trial judge's order granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on precisely the grounds argued by respondents at the summary judgment hearing. While that order did not restate the ground on which petitioner opposed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. Target Corp.
...concluded in its written order that the punitive damages award could not stand under section 15-32-530. Cf. Spence v. Wingate , 381 S.C. 487, 489, 674 S.E.2d 169, 170 (2009) ("We hold the Court of Appeals erred in finding the issue was not preserved for appeal. The trial judge's order grant......
-
Beneficial Fin. I, Inc. v. Windham
...not required to file a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion to alter or amend in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Spence v. Wingate , 381 S.C. 487, 489, 674 S.E.2d 169, 170 (2009).The Consent Order precluded Beneficial from "offering any testimony in defense of ... Windham's counterclaims," a......
-
Estate of Mims v. S.C. Dep't of Disabilities & Special Needs
...argued his theory of the case—from his pleadings to his arguments at summary judgment, and now on appeal. See Spence v. Wingate , 381 S.C. 487, 489, 674 S.E.2d 169, 170 (2009) (finding that because the circuit court's order granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on precisely the g......
-
Spence v. Wingate
...on Spence I and reversed and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeals for a ruling on the merits. Spence v. Wingate, 381 S.C. 487, 674 S.E.2d 169 (2009) ( Spence II ). Upon remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Wingate and remanded t......