Sterling Hills Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Hayes, 2022-UP-256

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Parties: Sterling Hills Homeowners' Association, Inc., Respondent, v. Elliot Hayes, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 08 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2022-UP-256,Appellate Case 2020-000056

1

Sterling Hills Homeowners' Association, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Elliot Hayes, Appellant.

No. 2022-UP-256

Appellate Case No. 2020-000056

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

June 8, 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 May 1, 2022

Appeal From Richland County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Andrew Sims Radeker, of Harrison, Radeker & Smith, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Christian Saville, of McCabe, Trotter & Beverly, P.C., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Elliot Hayes appeals a circuit court order, arguing the circuit court erred by (1) referring this case to the master-in-equity, (2) granting Sterling Hills Homeowners' Association's motions to dismiss two of his counterclaims, and

2

(3) granting Sterling Hills's motion for summary judgment on his third counterclaim. We affirm.

1. We hold the circuit court did not err by referring this case to the master-in-equity because Sterling Hills's causes of action and requested remedies were equitable, and therefore, Hayes was not entitled to a jury trial. See Carolina First Bank v. BADD, LLC, 414 S.C. 289, 292, 778 S.E.2d 106, 108 (2015) ("Whether a party is entitled to a jury trial is a question of law, which [an appellate court] reviews de novo . . . ."); Lester v. Dawson, 327 S.C. 263, 267, 491 S.E.2d 240, 242 (1997) ("[T]here is no right to trial by jury for equitable actions."); Cedar Cove Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. DiPietro, 368 S.C. 254, 258, 628 S.E.2d 284, 286 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The character of an action as legal or equitable depends on the relief sought."); Ins. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. S.C. Ins. Co., 271 S.C. 289, 293, 247 S.E.2d 315, 318 (1978) ("[A]n action sounding in law may be transformed to one in equity because equitable relief is sought."); Crewe v. Blackmon, 289 S.C. 229, 232-33, 345 S.E.2d 754, 756-57 (Ct. App. 1986) (concluding an action was equitable because most of the relief sought was equitable); S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 622, 550 S.E.2d 299, 302 (2001) (stating an action to enforce restrictive covenants is equitable).

2. We hold the circuit court did not err by granting Sterling Hills's motion to dismiss Hayes's counterclaim for breach of contract because Hayes did not identify in his pleading any contract or the nature of the alleged breach. See Spence v. Spence, 368 S.C. 106, 116, 628 S.E.2d 869, 874 (2006) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss a [claim against it] based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. ("In deciding whether the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss, the appellate court must consider whether the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving party], states any valid claim for relief."); S. Glass & Plastics Co. v. Kemper, 399 S.C. 483, 491, 732 S.E.2d 205, 209 (Ct. App. 2012) (...