Sterling Hills Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Hayes
Docket Number | 2022-UP-256,Appellate Case 2020-000056 |
Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
Parties | Sterling Hills Homeowners' Association, Inc., Respondent, v. Elliot Hayes, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
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 (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) (); Lester v. Dawson, 327 S.C. 263, 267, 491 S.E.2d 240, 242 (1997) (); 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) (); Crewe v. Blackmon, 289 S.C. 229, 232-33, 345 S.E.2d 754, 756-57 (Ct. App. 1986) ( ); S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 622, 550 S.E.2d 299, 302 (2001) ( ).
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) (); id. (); S. Glass & Plastics Co. v. Kemper, 399 S.C. 483, 491, 732 S.E.2d 205, 209 (Ct. App. 2012) ().
We also hold the circuit court did not err by granting Sterling Hills's motion to dismiss Hayes's counterclaim for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. Hayes's pleading failed to allege how Sterling Hills was engaged in "trade or commerce" constituting a "large scale use of unfair and deceptive trade practices" carried out "for sustenance or profit." See Spence, 368 S.C. at 116, 628 S.E.2d at 874 (); id. (); Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. S.C. Bd. of Dentistry, 403 S.C. 623, 639, 743 S.E.2d 808, 816 (2013) ; Noack Enters., Inc. v. Country Corner Interiors of Hilton Head Island, Inc., 290 S.C. 475, 477, 351 S.E.2d 347, 349 (Ct. App. 1986) .
Additionally, whether the circuit court erred by failing to grant leave for Hayes to amend his pleading is not preserved for review by the court. See Kitchen Planners, LLC v. Friedman, 432 S.C. 267, 279-80, 851 S.E.2d 724, 731 (Ct. App. 2020) (the appellant's argument that it was entitled to amend its complaint was not preserved because "it never requested leave of the circuit court to amend its pleadings" and instead "it raise[d] th[e] argument for the first time on appeal") .
3. We hold the circuit court did not err by granting Sterling Hills's motion for summary judgment on Hayes's counterclaim requesting a declaratory judgment that Sterling Hills had acted ultra vires. Hayes failed to present any evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably find that Sterling Hills failed to hold elections for its board of directors, despite the existence of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial