Stiles v. Onorato
Decision Date | 22 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 24243,24243 |
Citation | 457 S.E.2d 601,318 S.C. 297 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Beverly J. STILES, Plaintiff, v. Robert C. ONORATO, Appellant, v. John R.C. BOWEN, Respondent. . Heard |
A. Camden Lewis and Thomas A. Pendarvis, Lewis, Babcock & Hawkins, Columbia, for appellant.
James W. Alford, R. Lewis Johnson, and Curtis W. Dowling, Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, Columbia, for respondent.
Robert C. Onorato (Onorato) appeals an order dismissing his third party complaint against Respondent, John C. Bowen (Bowen) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, for failure to state a cause of action. We affirm.
Beverly Stiles, represented by attorney John Bowen, instituted this defamation 1 action against Onorato. Onorato counterclaimed against Stiles and filed a third-party complaint against Bowen alleging civil conspiracy and initiation of a frivolous lawsuit. 2 The circuit court dismissed the third-party complaint finding that it failed to state a cause of action under Gaar v. North Myrtle
Beach Realty Co., Inc., 287 S.C. 525, 339 S.E.2d 887 (Ct.App.1986).
Did circuit court err in dismissing Onorato's complaint for failure to state a cause of action?
Id. (Emphasis supplied).
Onorato concedes that, under Gaar, he may not maintain an action against Bowen for actions taken in his professional capacity as Stiles' attorney. However, he claims that nothing in Gaar renders an attorney immune for acts taken outside the scope of the professional relationship. We agree.
A number of jurisdictions recognize that an attorney may be held liable where he acts in bad faith or for his own personal motivations. See generally Annotation 97 ALR 3rd 688 ( ); Annotation 46 ALR 4th 249 ( ). See also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 674, comment d (attorney who acts without probable cause for an improper purpose is subject to same liability for the wrongful use of civil proceedings as any other person). Moreover, several courts have held that an attorney may be held liable arising out of a conspiracy with his client. See e.g., Wolfrich Corp. v. U.S. Automobile Assn., 149 Cal.App.3d 1206, 197 Cal.Rptr. 446 (1983) ( ); Doctors' Co. v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.3d 39, 260 Cal.Rptr. 183, 775 P.2d 508 (1989); Fraidin v. Weitzman, 93 Md.App. 168, 611 A.2d 1046 (1992) ( ). Additionally, attorneys have been held liable for fraud and conversion in conjunction with their representation of clients. See, e.g., L & H Airco, Inc. v. Rapistan Corp., 446 N.W.2d 372 (Minn.1989) ( ); Pew v. First National Bank, 827 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir.1987); Bongard v. Winter, 516 So.2d 27 (Fla.App.1987); Guillebeau v. Jenkins, 182 Ga.App. 225, 355 S.E.2d 453 (1987) ( ); LaBarre v. Gold, 520 So.2d 1327 (Miss.1987) ( ).
Consistent with Gaar and the above cited cases, we find that an attorney may be held liable for conspiracy where, in addition to representing his client, he breaches some independent duty to a third person or acts in his own personal interest, outside the scope of his representation of the client. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the basis that Gaar provides absolute immunity to an attorney under any and all circumstances. However, we affirm in result since the complaint here fails to set forth sufficient facts to remove Bowen from the ambit of Gaar.
The ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be based solely upon the allegations set forth on the face of the complaint. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kozel v. Kozel
...duty to a third person or acts in his own personal interest, outside the scope of his representation of the client." See Stiles , 457 S.E.2d at 602.Conflict Between South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Arizona Law There is an actual conflict between the laws of the three jurisdictions because ......
-
Al-Shabazz v. State
...facts presented by an applicant are true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the applicant. Cf. Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 457 S.E.2d 601 (1995) (ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion to dismiss must be based solely upon the allegations set forth on the face of the ......
-
Moore v. Weinberg
...client, he breaches some independent duty to a third person. . . ." Id. at 564, 633 S.E.2d at 509-10 (quoting Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 300, 457 S.E.2d 601, 602 (1995)). Our review of the record in Cowburn revealed no evidence of an agreement between the defendants or any indication ......
-
Nelson v. QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA INC.
...the allegations made on the face of the complaint. Baird v. Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 511 S.E.2d 69 (1999); Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 457 S.E.2d 601 (1995). If the facts and inferences drawn from the facts alleged on the complaint would entitle the plaintiff to relief on any t......