Thomas v. Hancock

• Decision Date: 01 August 1978
• Docket Number: No. 20733,20733
• Citation: 246 S.E.2d 604,271 S.C. 273
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Sandra G. THOMAS, Respondent, v. Bob HANCOCK and New Raintree Apartments, Appellants.

Page 604

246 S.E.2d 604

271 S.C. 273

Sandra G. THOMAS, Respondent, v. Bob HANCOCK and New Raintree Apartments, Appellants.

No. 20733.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 1, 1978.

Robert E. Salane and Edmund H. Monteith, Columbia, for appellants.

Lee M. Ramsey, Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

This appeal is from a verdict for respondent for $875.00, actual damages, and.$1000.00, punitive damages, for the alleged wrongful eviction of respondent by appellants from an apartment in the New Raintree Apartment Complex, located near Columbia, South Carolina. The sole issue (preserved by appellants' timely motions for non-suit, directed verdict, and judgment notwithstanding the verdict) is whether there was any evidence to sustain the finding that respondent was evicted from the apartment. Since we find no evidence to sustain the conclusion that there was an eviction, the judgment must be reversed.

In determining whether the evidence sustains the verdict, we must consider the testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to respondent and affirm the verdict if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn. However, if no reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence to sustain the verdict, the question is one of law for the court and the verdict must be set aside. Gause v. Livingston, 251 S.C. 8, 159 S.E.2d 604.

On October 12, 1974, respondent entered into possession of an apartment in the New Raintree Apartments under a written lease. As the result of an incident which occurred on November 15, 1974, respondent was requested, first, by the manager to vacate the apartment within twenty-four (24) hours and, shortly thereafter, by the appellant Hancock, agent of the owner, to vacate it within one week. She left the apartment within twenty-four hours and her furniture was removed at her direction by the end of the month. She made no further rental payments after her furniture was removed. This action was subsequently instituted and, upon trial, resulted in the verdict for respondent for her alleged wrongful eviction.

While respondent contends that she was evicted from her apartment, appellants maintain that she voluntarily vacated the premises. The evidence, viewed most favorably to respondent, shows that respondent abandoned her apartment in accordance with the landlord's request that she vacate. This request of the landlord (appellants) was prompted by the incident at respondent's apartment on November 15, 1974, over which respondent had no control and in which she was not at fault. Respondent vacated the apartment believing that appellants had authority to request her to leave or to initiate ejectment proceedings.

Generally, an eviction may be actual or constructive. The contention of respondent in this case is that her surrender of possession of the leased premises amounted to a constructive eviction.

Ordinarily, an Actual eviction is an actual expulsion or physical ouster of the tenant from a material part of the premises; while a Constructive eviction results from an intentional act or omission of the landlord, or those acting for him, that deprives the tenant of possession or...