West v. Gladney, 3160.

Decision Date08 May 2000
Docket NumberNo. 3160.,3160.
Citation533 S.E.2d 334,341 S.C. 127
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesDouglas A. WEST, Respondent/Appellant, v. Joe Louis GLADNEY, Appellant/Respondent, v. John E. Brown, Third-Party Defendant.

Joyce Farr Cheeks, of Columbia, for appellant/respondent.

Warren C. Powell, of Bruner, Powell & Robbins, of Columbia, for respondent/appellant.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas A. West brought this action against Joe Louis Gladney alleging Gladney defaulted on a promissory note and seeking full payment of the note and attorneys' fees. The trial court granted West summary judgment, awarding him $563,816.47 on the debt, but limiting the award of attorneys' fees to $50,000. Both parties appeal. We affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

In August 1996, West sold all of his shares in Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. to Gladney. In payment thereof, Gladney gave West $150,000 and executed a promissory note for $525,000. Because the stock was subject to a possible first lien by NationsBank, the sales agreement provided that Gladney, within ninety days of closing, would obtain NationsBank's release for any liability West might incur as a result of Am-Pro's obligations to the financial institution. When Gladney failed to make the payments required by the note, West declared Gladney in default and accelerated all future payments. West filed suit on June 3, 1997. Gladney answered and counterclaimed,1 complaining that a few months after the sale, Am-Pro filed for bankruptcy. He explained that as part of the proceedings, the bankruptcy court granted NationsBank leave to execute against all collateral held by the bank, including the stock that is the subject of this action. Gladney contended NationsBank's actions made it impossible for West to deliver the stock and also claimed the value of the stock was rendered essentially worthless as a result of the bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings. He alleged West knew or should have known at the time of the sale about Am-Pro's financial condition and that the stock was essentially worthless. Gladney asserted that West's failure to fully inform him of Am-Pro's true financial status and West's failure to deliver the stock constituted failure of consideration, misrepresentation, or concealment of material facts or all three. Not only did Gladney contend these facts barred West from receiving any additional payments on the note, he also asserted they justified his recouping all funds already paid.

In September 1997, West moved for summary judgment on both his complaint and Gladney's counterclaim. West filed an affidavit in support of this motion on December 31, 1997. The hearing was originally scheduled for January 7, 1998, but was continued because of the trial schedule of Gladney's counsel. On the day of the rescheduled hearing, some two months later, Gladney provided West with his affidavit opposing summary judgment.

The trial court ruled that Gladney's affidavit was not timely and should not be considered. It found West fully performed his obligations under the sales agreement and note and that Gladney failed to make the payments when due or satisfy West's obligation to NationsBank. The court further held West "neither misrepresented the value of the shares of stock... nor did he know or have reason to know at or prior to the time of the sale" that their value was "anything other than the sales price." Accordingly, it awarded West summary judgment. The court, however, declined to award West the full fifteen percent of the sum due as provided by the note for attorneys' fees. Instead, it found $50,000 to be a reasonable fee.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The grant of summary judgment is proper when it is clear no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Cafe Assocs., Ltd. v. Gerngross, 305 S.C. 6, 406 S.E.2d 162 (1991). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and the inferences which can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 9, 406 S.E.2d at 164.

[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [that] party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is `entitled to a judgment as a matter of law' because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.

Baughman v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 116, 410 S.E.2d 537, 545-46 (1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)).

DISCUSSION
I. Gladney's Appeal
A. Timeliness of Affidavit

Gladney argues the trial court erred in holding that his affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed on the date of the hearing should not be considered. We disagree.

Rule 56(c) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure specifies that when filing papers in response to motions for summary judgment, "[t]he adverse party may serve opposing affidavits not later than two days before the hearing." Rule 56(c), SCRCP. Our supreme court has ruled that the trial court may, in its discretion, "refuse to consider materials that were not timely served such that the opposing party had no time to prepare a response." Black v. Lexington Sch. Dist. No. 2, 327 S.C. 55, 60, 488 S.E.2d 327, 329 (1997). The Black court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider an affidavit filed on the date of the hearing when the appellant's lawyer admitted he failed to serve the affidavit within the time required by Rule 56 and failed to assert any good excuse for that failure. Id.

In the present case, more than two months passed from the time West served his affidavit until the hearing. In spite of this generous amount of time, Gladney did not file his affidavit opposing summary judgment until the day of the hearing. Moreover, Gladney failed to present any good cause for his failure to timely file the affidavit. Thus, under these circumstances, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the affidavit should not be considered. Accordingly, we will not consider the affidavit in our review.

B. Summary Judgment

Gladney argues the trial court erred in granting West's motion for summary judgment because the record reveals that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether West was guilty of making misrepresentations. We disagree.

Gladney contends his assertion of misrepresentation encompasses negligent as well as intentional misrepresentation. The elements of an action for fraud based on a representation include: "(1) a representation; (2) falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) knowledge of the falsity or a reckless disregard of its truth or falsity; (5) intent that the representation be acted upon; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer's reliance upon the truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely thereon; and (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury." Moorhead v. First Piedmont Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 356, 359, 256 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1979). These elements must be established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Lundy v. Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., 256 S.C. 506, 183 S.E.2d 335 (1971).

In a claim for the common law tort of negligent misrepresentation where the damage alleged is a pecuniary loss, the plaintiff must allege and prove the following essential elements:

(1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant had a pecuniary interest in making the statement; (3) the defendant owed a duty of care to see that he communicated truthful information to the plaintiff; (4) the defendant breached that duty by failing to exercise due care; (5) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation; and (6) the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss as the proximate result of his reliance upon the representation.

AMA Management Corp. v. Strasburger, 309 S.C. 213, 222, 420 S.E.2d 868, 874 (Ct.App.1992); see also Rickborn v. Liberty Life Ins. Co., 321 S.C. 291, 468 S.E.2d 292 (1996)

. As part of his case, the plaintiff must establish that his reliance on the misrepresentation was reasonable. AMA Management Corp.,

309 S.C. at 223,

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Hughes v. Oconee Cnty.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 11 Octubre 2007
    ... ... judgment ( see generally, West v. Gladney , ... 341 S.C. 127, 533 S.E.2d 334, 338 (Ct. App. 2000)), these ... ...
  • Anthony v. Atl. Grp., Inc., Civil Action Nos. 8:09–cv–02383–JMC, 8:09–cv–02942–JMC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 14 Noviembre 2012
    ...them are casual statements for which there can be no liability under fraud and misrepresentation claims. See West v. Gladney, 341 S.C. 127, 134, 533 S.E.2d 334, 337 (Ct.App.2000). Perhaps most importantly, Plaintiffs were required to sign the Certificate of Per Diem Eligibility, certifying ......
  • Allegro, Inc. v. Emmett J. Scully, Synergetic, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 26 Agosto 2014
    ...(6) the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss as the proximate result of his reliance on the representation. West v. Gladney, 341 S.C. 127, 133–34, 533 S.E.2d 334, 337 (Ct.App.2000). “ ‘There is no liability for casual statements, representations as to matters of law, or matters which plainti......
  • Adrian v. Mesirow Financial Structured Settlements, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • 9 Julio 2010
    ...and (6) the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss as the proximate result of his reliance upon the representation.West v. Gladney, 341 S.C. 127, 134, 533 S.E.2d 334 (Ct.App.2000). To prove her claim of fraudulent inducement, Adrian must establish:(1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT