Thompson v. Watts, 22108

• Decision Date: 17 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22108,22108
• Citation: 316 S.E.2d 393,281 S.C. 504
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 72,032 Marvin H. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Bonnie N. WATTS, Respondent.

Page 393

316 S.E.2d 393

281 S.C. 504, Blue Sky L. Rep. P 72,032

Marvin H. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Bonnie N. WATTS, Respondent.

No. 22108.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 17, 1984.

Nolen L. Brunson, of Hayes, Brunson & Gatlin, Rock Hill, for appellant.

David A. White and Benjamin A. Johnson, Rock Hill, for respondent.

GREGORY, Associate Justice.

Appellant Marvin H. Thompson appeals from an order granting respondent Bonnie N. Watts' Demurrer and an order granting respondent's motion for Summary Judgment. We consolidate the two appeals and affirm.

In 1979, Thompson and Watts entered into an agreement for the sale of all outstanding shares of a South Carolina corporation. Thompson paid $12,000.00 down and gave a promissory note for the balance of $33,000.00, the note being secured by a pledge of shares.

Thompson took possession and operated the business for a short time. When the note became due he could not pay. He then instituted this action, alleging three causes of action: (1) a violation of the Uniform Securities Act, S.C.Code Ann. §§ 35-1-10 through 35-1-1590; (2) a tort action for fraud and deceit; and (3) wrongful ouster (this cause of action is not relevant to this appeal). Watts demurred on the ground the causes of action were improperly joined. The parties agreed to proceed with the fraud and deceit action, with Watts' right under the demurrer preserved. Watts counterclaimed, seeking judgment on the note. The jury found for Watts at the trial of the fraud and deceit action.

After a hearing, Judge Morris sustained the demurrer, finding the causes of action were improperly joined. Thompson appealed. Watts filed a petition for remand so he could file a motion for summary judgment to be heard by Judge Morris. The petition was granted. The motion was presented to Judge Morris by correspondence since he was no longer in the parties' circuit. Judge Morris granted Watts' motion. Thompson appeals the orders sustaining Watts' demurrer and granting Watts' motion for summary judgment.

Thompson contends § 35-1-1560 of the Code allows joinder of his two causes of action. That section states that the rights and remedies provided by the Uniform Securities Act are additional to any of the rights or remedies that may exist at law or in equity. However, causes of action which seek inconsistent remedies, such as where one is based on the continued existence of a sale and the other on its abrogation, and the purchaser cannot in the one cause of action secure the relief appropriate to the other, cannot be joined. Turner v. Carey, 227 S.C. 298, 87 S.E.2d 871 (1955); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231, 134 S.E. 222 (1926). We conclude § 35-1-1560 provides rights or remedies additional to others that may exist at law or in equity, but those rights or remedies must be consistent with each other.

Bradley v. Hullander, 266 S.C. 188, 222 S.E.2d 283 (1976), involved two causes of action similar to those alleged in this case, one alleging a securities violation and seeking rescission and recovery of his consideration, the other alleging common law fraud and deceit and seeking rescission and actual and punitive damages. This Court held the causes of action were properly joined since both repudiated the contract. Here, however, Thompson repudiates the contract of sale in his cause of action alleging the securities violation,...