Windham v. Honeycutt, 0779
| Citation | 348 S.E.2d 185,290 S.C. 60 |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 0779,0779 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Stanley WINDHAM, Respondent, v. Hazel M. HONEYCUTT, Appellant. . Heard |
James R. Honeycutt, Fort Mill, and James B. Richardson, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Nolen L. Brunson, of Hayes, Brunson and Gatlin, Rock Hill, for respondent.
This appeal involves an award of damages incidental to an order for specific performance of a land sales contract between respondent Stanley Windham and appellant Hazel M. Honeycutt. We affirm as modified.
On August 23, 1979, Honeycutt contracted to sell thirty acres of land to Windham for a total purchase price of $115,000, with a down payment of $60,000. Honeycutt subsequently refused to convey the land, and Windham commenced an action for specific performance. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an earlier order by the trial court granting specific performance and remanded the case for a hearing to determine the amount of special damages, if any. See Windham v. Honeycutt, 279 S.C. 109, 302 S.E.2d 856 (1983).
The damages hearing was held before a special referee, who recommended that Windham be awarded three items of special damages: (1) $19,800, the rental value of the property from the time conveyance was due until the date of actual conveyance; (2) $7,200, the cost incurred by Windham in boarding his dogs and horses during the period conveyance was delayed; and (3) $1,500, representing the loss incurred by Windham in selling his horses at less than fair market value before the conveyance was actually made. In addition, the special referee recommended that any counterclaim or set-off requested by Honeycutt be denied.
The trial judge adopted the recommendations of the special referee in their entirety. Honeycutt appeals.
Honeycutt first argues that the trial judge erred in not offsetting the interim interest that could have been earned on the purchase price against the fair rental value awarded to Windham. We agree.
An award of fair rental value, such as the one here to Windham, cannot be correctly characterized as special damages; rather, the award is in the nature of an accounting, by which a court of equity seeks to place the parties in the same position as if the conveyance had been made when due. To achieve this, the court will award the fair rental value of the property to the purchaser on the one hand and, on the other, interest on the unpaid purchase price to the vendor. Eliason v. Watts, 615 P.2d 427 (Utah 1980); Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d 1204, 1206 (1949). One cannot be awarded without the other. "The fruits of possession and the interest are mutually exclusive--there is no right upon the part of either [the purchaser or the vendor] to have both." Bembridge v. Miller, 235 Or. 396, 408, 385 P.2d 172, 178 (1963). See also Ellis v. Mihelis, 32 Cal.Rptr. 415, 60 Cal.2d 206, 384 P.2d 7 (1963).
Windham does not deny he had use of the purchase money during the time closing was delayed. Nevertheless, he contends that Honeycutt should be denied any set-off because of her culpability in causing the delay. We disagree. An offset for interim interest on the purchase price will be allowed even where the vendor was at fault in delaying the conveyance; however, to prevent the vendor from profiting by her wrongdoing, the offset will be limited in that the vendor cannot recover any excess of interest over rents and profits. Eliason v. Watts, supra; Pearce v. Third Ave. Improvement Co., 221 Ala. 209, 128 So. 396 (1930).
Honeycutt's set-off for interim interest therefore cannot exceed $19,800, the undisputed fair rental value for the property. Interim interest is calculated at the legal rate absent a stipulation in the contract. Annot., 7 A.L.R.2d at 1206. Computing the interest on the purchase money due at closing ($60,000) at the legal rate of interest (8.75 percent 1) during a delay of 44 months, we find that Honeycutt is entitled to an offset of $19,200.
Honeycutt further argues that she should be entitled to recover also the cost of repairs, maintenance and improvements she made on the property as well as the amount of taxes and insurance paid during the period in which closing was delayed. While we note that there is a split of authority as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Builders Transport, Inc.
...to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time of contracting as a probable result of a breach." Windham v. Honeycutt, 290 S.C. 60, 348 S.E.2d 185, 187 (1986) (emphasis added). Moreover, the burden is on the party that seeks to recover special damages. See Jackson v. Midlands......
-
SC Dept. of Transp. v. Faulkenberry, 3043.
...interest should not be allowed. A close analogy is found in an action for an accounting, as demonstrated in Windham v. Honeycutt, 290 S.C. 60, 348 S.E.2d 185 (Ct.App.1986). Honeycutt contracted to sell thirty acres of land to Windham for a total purchase price of $115,000, with a down payme......
-
Ingram v. Kasey's Associates
...conclude Ingram is entitled to specific performance. Cf. White v. Felkel, 225 S.C. 453, 82 S.E.2d 813 (1954); Windham v. Honeycutt, 290 S.C. 60, 348 S.E.2d 185 (Ct.App.1986). VII. We conclude Ingram properly exercised the option to purchase by written notice within the option's time period.......
-
Abba Equipment, Inc. v. Thomason
...a proper review. D & D Leasing Co. of South Carolina, Inc. v. Gentry, 298 S.C. 342, 380 S.E.2d 823 (1989); Windham v. Honeycutt, 290 S.C. 60, 348 S.E.2d 185 (Ct.App.1986). Because this issue has not been properly preserved, we cannot address it on For the foregoing reasons, the order below ......