Is Promissory Estoppel Subject to Statute of Limitations in South Carolina?
Thomerson v. DeVito came to the Supreme Court of South Carolina on certification from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, as the U.S. District Court needed a matter of South Carolina law settled before it was able to issue a full judgment in the case. (Read the SC Supreme Court’s opinion here.)
The certified question is: “Does the three-year statute of limitations of S.C. Code Ann 15-3-530 apply to claims for promissory estoppel?”
First let’s briefly look at the background of the case, then at what promissory estoppel is, and finally at how the court answered the question and the reasoning behind it.
Thomerson v. DeVito
Johnny Thomerson was hired at Lenco Marine, a boat products manufacturer, and stated that in employment negotiations he (along with another employee) discussed getting ownership interest in the company as part of his compensation package. Richard DeVito, president of Lenco at the time, said they’d “work on that as we go down the road,” and the subject was dropped.
A few years later, in early 2009, DeVito told Thomerson and the other employee that Lenco was buying back 15% interest from a minority shareholder, and the plan was to distribute those shares in equal 3% amounts to five separate employees. Thomerson stated that he believed the shares would be issued when the buyback occurred.
But by 2011, Thomerson still hadn’t received any shares. He asked DeVito about it, who said he didn’t want to distribute shares while the company was involved in a lawsuit. By 2013, the lawsuit had been settled, but DeVito continued to put Thomerson off about the ownership shares. (By this time, the other employee had left the company, without ever receiving the promised 3% interest.) In 2016, DeVito finally admitted he was not going to fulfill the promise he made to Thomerson to give him 3% ownership interest in the company.
In 2018, Thomerson brought a lawsuit against DeVito and Samuel Mullinax, CEO of Lenco at the time in question (collectively, the Defendants), in federal district court. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all but one of Thomerson’s many claims on the basis that they were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the three years started counting down in 2013 after the lawsuit against Lenco was settled and DeVito still refused to give Thomerson the promised ownership interest. To be in time, Thomerson should have filed by 2016, but he didn’t bring suit until 2018.
The one claim the district court didn’t grant summary judgment on was Thomerson’s claim of promissory estoppel, as it was unclear whether the statute of limitations applies to promissory estoppel in South Carolina.
What is Promissory Estoppel?
First, what is promissory estoppel? Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that says a promise is enforceable by law when the person making the promise goes back on their word to the detriment of the person they made the promise to. This is true even when there’s no valid written agreement memorializing the promise. When it’s enforced, the promiser must follow through on their promise, or somehow make it up to the wronged party if the promise can no longer be kept.
In the Thomerson case, DeVito promised Thomerson a 3% share of ownership in the company but went back on his word. So when Lenco Marine was sold to another company in 2016, Thomerson didn’t see any money from the sale because he never received the ownership interest he was promised.
Since Thomerson’s five other claims were barred by the district court, promissory estoppel was the only claim left that could bring him relief – if the Supreme Court of South Carolina determined that the statute of limitations is not applicable to promissory estoppel.
Is Promissory Estoppel Subject to Statute of Limitations in South Carolina?
No. The Supreme Court of South Carolina determined that promissory estoppel is not subject to the three-year statute of limitations in the state.
Most of the opinion is the legal reasoning and discussion behind this conclusion, which is too detailed to cover fully on this blog, but here are some of the main points.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has recognized that the statute of limitations applies to actions at law (that is, where legal relief is sought, often monetary damages), while laches applies to suits in equity (that is, where equitable relief is sought, such as an injunction or specific performance, rather than monetary damages). Whether promissory estoppel is subject to the statute of limitations depends on whether it’s characterized as a legal or equitable claim.
The court ultimately reasons that it’s an equitable claim, which is subject to laches rather than the statute of limitations. This is true even if in certain cases the relief being sought is monetary. For instance, in Thomerson, the equitable remedy of enforcing the promise by making the Defendants give Thomerson 3% ownership interest in the company is impossible because the company has already been sold. The fair remedy now would be monetary damages to make up for what Thomerson would have received in the sale had he originally been given the 3% he was promised.
Legal Help with Contract Law and Business Law in South Carolina
Though promissory estoppel can be enforced in some circumstances even when a written contract isn’t present, it’s always best to get things in writing to protect your interests. For help with contracts and other business matters, including governance documents, business planning, business acquisition, and commercial real estate transactions, contact Gem McDowell of the Gem McDowell Law Group. Gem has over 30 years of experience solving problems and advising his clients to protect their business interests.
Gem and his associates serve clients in the Charleston area and across South Carolina. Call the Mt. Pleasant office today to schedule your free, no-obligation consultation at 843-284-1021.
What is Title Insurance and Why is It Important?
We’ve previously discussed the importance of a title search on this blog. A title search occurs before a real estate closing to ensure that the property in question is free of any liens, pending lawsuits, unpaid taxes, and other similar issues that could “cloud” the title.
Once the title search is completed, the purchaser may then wish to buy title insurance. While South Carolina doesn’t require buyers to get title insurance, lenders typically do, meaning if you have a mortgage on property in SC then you most likely have title insurance to cover it.
Title insurance was the subject of a case that went before the South Carolina Court of Appeals in 2020, Jericho State v. Chicago Title Insurance (read the opinion here). This case demonstrates what’s at stake for property owners who discover a defect or encumbrance on their title and shows how the court views the role of title insurance in protecting property owners’ interests.
Jericho State v. Chicago Title Insurance Background
The case centers around a large piece of commercial real estate in Horry County, South Carolina.
In 2006, Peachtree Properties of North Myrtle Beach, LLC (Peachtree) bought 131.40 acres in Horry County (the Property) from the McClam family for $22.5 million. The plan was to develop the land into a residential subdivision on the waterway. It was financed with two mortgages: one from Jericho State Capital Corporation of Florida (Jericho) and one from R.E. Loans, LLC (REL).
In 2007, Peachtree defaulted on the loans. Jericho foreclosed and successfully bid on the Property at sale, getting a master’s deed to the land that was still subject to the REL mortgage, which was later assigned to Lynx Jericho Partners, LLC (Lynx Jericho).
Two years later, in 2009, the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) filed an eminent domain action against Jericho for 10.18 acres of the Property to use for a roadway, the Carolina Bays Parkway.
Previously, in 1999, Horry County created a map which included proposed locations for parts of the Carolina Bays Parkway, and a 2002 amendment to the map added a right of way that had the parkway bisecting the property in question and crossing the intracoastal waterway. The 1999 Official Map Ordinance (Ordinance) had established Horry County’s right to reserve future locations of streets, utilities, and other building projects in the public interest, as allowed by South Carolina law. The land SCDOT claimed for eminent domain was land that had been reserved for future use in Horry County’s map.
Jericho and Lynx Jericho were awarded $2.1 million dollars in 2014 by a jury as just compensation for the government taking the land. During the litigation, Jericho and Lynx Jericho submitted title insurance claims to Chicago Title Insurance Company (Chicago Title), which had written both title insurance policies for the two original mortgages.
Chicago Title denied their claims, which led to Jericho and Lynx Jericho (collectively, the Appellants) suing Chicago Title for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits. A special referee granted summary judgment to Chicago Title. The case was then appealed.
What is Title Insurance and What Does Title Insurance Cover?
While title searches should, ideally, discover all actual or potential defects and encumbrances to a piece of property so they can be dealt with before closing, it’s not guaranteed that a title is entirely free and clear. That’s where title insurance comes in. Title insurance protects the real estate buyer or the mortgage holder/lender from problems that arise due to a defect in or encumbrance on the title to the land. The court of appeals defines encumbrance as “a burden on the land that is adverse to the landowner’s interest and impairs the value of the land but does not defeat the owner’s title.”
Many title insurance claims are related to:
- Back taxes
- Pre-existing liens
- Easements
- Judgments
- Unmarketable title
- Fraud and forgery
- Inheritance issues (e.g., conflicting wills or undisclosed heirs)
Title insurance is different from other common kinds of insurance. Car insurance and homeowners insurance, for example, protect you against things that happen after you purchase your car or home. But title insurance protects you against losses that arise from issues that were already present before you purchased the property. Quoting another case, the court of appeals says the purpose is to “place the insured in the position he thought he occupied when the policy was issued.”
The SC Court of Appeals’ Findings in Jericho
The questions for the court of appeals in Jericho are whether the Appellants’ claims were covered or excluded by their title insurance policies and whether the special referee erred in granting summary judgment to Chicago Title.
The relevant part of the title insurance policies (which used the same language, as they were created using the same standard form) is as follows:
“SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE… AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY… insures, as of Date of Policy… against loss or damage… sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:…
“2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
“3. Unmarketability of the title…”
When it comes to what’s covered, the insured has the burden of proving its claims fall under the policy’s coverage. When it comes to what’s excluded, the burden of proof flips, and it’s up to the insurer to show that the claims are excluded from the policy’s coverage. With that in mind, here are some issues the court discusses:
Did the Ordinance constitute a defect or encumbrance that was subject to the insurance policy?
The Appellants argued that the Horry County Ordinance caused a defect or encumbrance on the title which burdened the land and depreciated its value. The court of appeals agrees. It concludes that the Ordinance went beyond regulating use of the land and created a third-party interest in the Property in favor of the County. Such a defect or encumbrance is covered under point 2 in the policy.
Chicago Title argued that the Ordinance allowed landowners to appeal and oppose their property’s inclusion on the map which reserved lands for future use, but that just proved the Appellants’ point: the Ordinance created an encumbrance on the Property.
Did the Ordinance affect the marketability of the title?
Quoting another case, the appeals court says, “A marketable title is one free from encumbrances… It is a title which a reasonable purchaser, well-informed as to the facts and their legal significance, is ready and willing to accept.” It must be not only free of defects and encumbrances but “the reasonable probability of litigation,” too. Here, the Ordinance did create a reasonable probability of litigation over the title.
Chicago Title argues that the Ordinance only regulated the use of the Property and therefore didn’t affect the marketability of the title. But the court again stresses that the Ordinance created a “third party interest in the Property,” saying that it was “so foreign” from normal land use measures that there’s no real argument here that it made the title unmarketable. The court agrees with Chicago Title that any landowner may face eminent domain claims, but the Ordinance and maps made Horry County’s intentions clear several years earlier and there was a high probability of such a claim here.
The court sides with the Appellants on the issue of the title’s marketability and reverses the special referee’s grant of summary Judgment to Chicago Title.
Were the Appellants’ claims excluded from coverage?
Exclusion 1 bars coverage for “Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation… restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land…” However, as discussed above, the Horry County Ordinance didn’t just affect the use of the land, but its title, and therefore Exclusion 1 doesn’t apply.
Exclusion 2 bars coverage related to eminent domain, but the Appellants’ complaint is for the loss of value in the title when they acquired it in 2007, not for the eminent domain action that occurred in 2009 (after the effective date of the policies). Therefore, Exclusion 2 does not apply.
Exclusion 3(d) excludes coverage for defects, liens, encumbrances, and so on that occur after the effective date of the policy. Since the Ordinance and the 2002 amendment to the map creating the encumbrance were already in existence years before the policies went into effect, Exclusion 3(d) does not apply.
The court of appeals determined that none of the Appellants’ claims were barred by the policies’ exclusions, and that the special referee erred in finding they applied.
Summing up the purpose of title insurance and how exclusions should be interpreted, the court of appeals says, “Real estate investors buy title insurance to protect against such unforeseen ‘off the record’ risks… The fundamental idea behind title insurance is to cover rather than exclude unforeseen and unknown risks; otherwise, title insurance would not provide the peace of mind it touts.”
Help with Commercial Real Estate Deals in South Carolina
When it comes to buying real estate, having a free and clear title as well as title insurance is important to protect your interests, whether it’s a commercial deal or a private one.
If you’re involved in commercial real estate transactions in South Carolina, work with an experienced commercial real estate attorney like Gem McDowell. Gem has nearly 30 years of experience practicing law in South Carolina and has closed over $1 billion in real estate deals, including one deal worth $270 million. He helps his clients close the deal while advising them, protecting their business interests, and preventing problems before they arise. He’s ready to do the same thing for you.
Call Gem and his team at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC today at 843-284-1021 to schedule your free consultation.
A Classic Squeeze-Out: Minority Member Oppression in Wilson v Gandis
In the previous blog, we looked at one of the risks of being in an LLC, minority member oppression. This happens when a member or members of the LLC act to reduce a minority member’s involvement in the company against their will. The majority member(s) may try to “squeeze out” or “freeze out” the minority member from the company altogether. Or they may engage in conduct like withholding distributions and reducing the minority member’s involvement in the company while essentially trapping their investment in the LLC with no way for the minority member to get it back out.
This was the central issue in a case heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court in June 2019, Wilson v Gandis, in which the oppression was described as a “classic squeeze-out.” It’s rather convoluted, with multiple lawsuits and issues, but we’ll focus on the issue of minority oppression and exactly what constitutes it in the eyes of South Carolina courts.
The Background
In 2007, David Wilson and John Gandis formed Carolina Custom Converting (CCC), a company selling film, resin, and other materials. It was a manager-managed LLC, with each owning 50% membership interest. Importantly, Wilson and Gandis never executed a formal operating agreement and had no employee, noncompete, nondisclosure, or nonsolicitation agreements. Many of their oral conversations and agreements were memorialized through email, however.
CCC’s business was intricately linked to other businesses owned by Wilson and Gandis. When CCC was formed, Wilson owned Eastern Film Solutions (EFS) and Gandis owned DecoTex and M-Tech. Wilson agreed to wind down EFS and bring that business over to CCC, for which he was compensated $8,000 per month, later raised to $12,000 per month. Gandis agreed to extend a line of credit to CCC from DecoTex and M-Tech. Plus, CCC operated out of a building owned by M-Tech, so Gandis received the benefit of the rent money paid by CCC.
Gandis brought on Andrea Comeau-Shirley, a CPA, to help with accounting and advice. In 2009, Gandis and Wilson each transferred 5% of their interest to Shirley. She didn’t have a formal voting interest but was actively involved in managing CCC.
Not long after, things started to go south for Wilson. Shirley and Gandis grew closer and began excluding Wilson from discussions about the company’s operations. Over the course of years, they exchanged many emails, which later the trial court said “provide[d] evidence of their oppressive conduct against Wilson.”
The Lawsuits: Wilson v Gandis
After a long period of behavior unfavorable to Wilson, lawsuits followed. The main issue we’ll be looking at is Wilson’s claim against Gandis and Shirley for minority member oppression. (Other issues not relevant here include Gandis’s and Shirley’s counterclaim against Wilson for breach of fiduciary duty, which they lost, and CCC’s claim against Wilson and companies he worked with after CCC for misappropriation of trade secrets, which they also lost.)
In a 5-day bench trial in 2014, a trial court found Gandis and Shirley had engaged in oppressive conduct against Wilson, saying “This is a classic squeeze-out,” and that the body of emails between Gandis and Shirley “abounds with evidence of calculated oppression” and “could serve as a script” for minority member oppression. The court found in favor of Wilson and ordered Gandis and Shirley to buy out Wilson’s interest in CCC as individuals, rather than having CCC buy him out.
Gandis and Shirley appealed, and in an unpublished decision, the appeals court agreed with the trial court and adopted the order in its entirety. They appealed again, and the South Carolina Supreme Court heard the case in June 2019.
Examples of Oppressive Conduct
In its opinion, the supreme court states that it’s not necessary for the plaintiff to prove illegal or fraudulent conduct in order to prove minority oppression. The minority investor instead needs to show that their investment is “trapped” and that they’re facing exclusion from participation in business returns for an indefinite period of time. What constitutes oppressive behavior must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, the supreme court agrees with the trial court’s conclusions about oppressive conduct on the part of Gandis and Shirley. Here are many of the acts Gandis and Shirley engaged in that the courts found oppressive:
Conspiring together to “get Wilson out.” Many emails exchanged between Gandis and Shirley blatantly and boldly discussed their plans to get Wilson out by different means, including making him an employee with a 5-year noncompete agreement and firing him on the smallest of pretexts.
Withholding distributions. From 2007 to 2010, CCC set aside funds to cover members’ individual tax liabilities, which were proportional to their membership interests. In 2011, this changed. Shirley emailed Gandis and encouraged him to use the funds that would have gone to members to help pay their tax liabilities to instead pay back what was owed on CCC’s line of credit from Gandis’s other business, which would directly benefit Gandis and leave Wilson without money to pay his tax liability. Shirley let Wilson know that there would be no distributions that year to members to cover tax liabilities.
Secretly monitoring Wilson’s emails. Gandis and Shirley began reading Wilson’s emails and referenced them in their own email exchanges. In 2011, they read an email to Wilson from his wife in which she expressed frustration over how Shirley and Gandis were managing CCC. From then on, Gandis’s and Shirley’s efforts to exclude Wilson from the LLC increased.
Gandis and Shirley later said in court that they were simply archiving all of CCC’s incoming emails in order to keep customer quotes and so forth available, but the trial court said this testimony was not credible, and the supreme court agreed. They also said that the employee handbook makes it clear that company email should not have an expectation of privacy – but the handbook was never issued.
Withholding income from Wilson. Not long after reading the email to Wilson from his wife, Gandis and Shirley stopped paying Wilson the monthly $12,000 they had agreed upon to compensate him for bringing his previous company’s business over to CCC.
Plus, they began classifying Wilson’s distributions as loans. When the situation came to a head in October 2011, Gandis (on Shirley’s advice) gave Wilson two options. 1. Surrender his membership interest in order to satisfy his loan balance of $123,000, which began accruing once they recategorized his distributions as loans. Or 2. Become an at-will employee of CCC (with the aim of firing him for the smallest of reasons, according to an email from Shirley).
From there, Wilson and Gandis entered into back-and-forth negotiations. Wilson was trying to find a way to either stay involved fairly or leave with his rightful share of what he was owed, while Gandis was trying to find a way to get Wilson out paying as little as possible.
Revoking financial authority. Around this time, Shirley removed Wilson as signatory on CCC’s bank account, leaving Gandis as the only signatory on the account, and revoked Wilson’s authority to make wire transfers. Wilson’s ability to access CCC’s financial information was also limited.
Misrepresenting the company’s finances. Gandis and Shirley made it look as if CCC had less cash than it had and later manipulated the December 2011 pro forma balance sheet to make it look like Wilson’s interest in the company was less than it really was.
Locking Wilson out of the building. In January 2012, after Wilson and Gandis were unable to come to an agreement about what should happen, Wilson arrived at the office to find Gandis there with a police officer and a locksmith. Since Wilson was a co-owner, the officer didn’t make him leave, and Wilson was able to enter the building and take two laptops, a Blackberry, and a number of files with him before he left and the locks were changed.
Emails between Gandis and Shirley showed that this was their plan. They discussed the legality of it and what to use as a cover story – first that Wilson had resigned (which he protested he didn’t), then that they did it because Wilson was competing with CCC.
Terminating Wilson’s health insurance coverage and cell phone services. These benefits were cut off for Wilson – but not for other members of the LLC – after he was locked out. Plus, from here Gandis and Shirley increased CCC’s monthly rent, which, remember, directly benefited Gandis since CCC rented a building from Gandis’s company M-Tech. They also raised the rate on the line of credit, which again directly benefited Gandis.
Starting up a competing company. In July 2012, Gandis and Shirley started up another LLC, ZOi Films, without telling Wilson. They said they founded it in an attempt to rebrand CCC and it was to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCC, but the trial court characterized it as an attempt to “siphon off” business from CCC.
Minority oppression must be determined on a case-by-case basis, says the supreme court, and in this instance it was not ambiguous – the trial court, court of appeals, and supreme court all agreed that Gandis and Shirley engaged in oppressive acts that were “brazen” and “unconscionable” (in the words of the trial court).
A Point of Disagreement
There was one point on which the supreme court disagreed with the trial court, and that’s the issue of who should be responsible for buying Wilson out. Gandis and Shirley argued against the trial court’s order that they must buy out Wilson’s share with their own money, as they argue that the LLC should protect them. They cited subsection 33-44-303(c) of South Carolina Code which protects LLC members from personal liability when acting in the course of ordinary business. But engaging in acts of calculated oppression is not in the course of ordinary business, the court determined.
Still, the supreme court did reverse the trial court’s order for Gandis and Shirley to personally buy Wilson out and remanded the case back to the trial court. CCC is ordered to buy out Wilson’s share, and if it doesn’t do that in a timely manner, then Gandis and Shirley will have to do so personally in a way that’s proportional to their interest in the business.
Protect Your Interests with LLC Governing Documents
The supreme court’s opinion called out that Wilson and Gandis did not have an operating agreement, employee handbook, or other optional but important documents to help them run their business. While having governance documents can’t entirely prevent minority oppression, they can help protect minority members’ interests and give recourse should the issue go to court. Not all instances of minority oppression are as blatant (and numerous) as in the case above.
If you are planning to start up an LLC with other people, or even if you already run one but don’t have anything beyond Articles of Incorporation, get your governance documents drafted and done. Call business attorney Gem at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant, SC. He and his associates can draft documents that are tailored to your business that are fair to members and will help as you run the business and run into questions. Call today to schedule a free consultation at 843-284-1021.
Your Risks as a Minority Member in an LLC: Oppression and Squeeze-Out
A limited liability company (LLC) is a great thing for many entrepreneurs. Among other things, it provides liability protection while requiring fewer formalities than a corporation. But it’s not risk-free. One of the potential risks is minority oppression of members who own less than 50% of the LLC.
Today we’re going to look at what minority member oppression is, what your rights are as a minority member of an LLC, and what you can do to protect yourself.
Risk of Oppression for Minority Members in an LLC
Minority member oppression occurs when a member or members of an LLC act to reduce a minority member’s involvement in the LLC against their will.
When minority shareholder oppression occurs in a corporation, the shareholder can simply sell their shares (albeit at an unfairly low price in many cases) and walk away. However, in an LLC and close corporations, it’s often not so easy. The minority member may find that their investment is essentially being held hostage, and they don’t have a legal avenue to get it out of the company. Walking away means losing their investment.
The oppression often entails reducing the minority member’s income from the business, keeping them out of the loop regarding company business, and excluding them from important management decisions. Another tactic is for the majority member(s) to create a new, separate business entity and merge that with the existing business without giving the minority member any ownership in the new merged business, instead exchanging their interests for cash or eliminating it altogether.
When the end goal of this oppression is to force the minority member to give up their ownership in the LLC altogether, that’s commonly referred to as a squeeze-out or freeze-out.
LLC Minority Members’ Rights Under South Carolina Law
If your LLC does business without important governance documents (covered in the section below) and a dispute arises and goes to court, then South Carolina laws regarding LLCs apply. These vary somewhat depending on what kind of LLC it is (member-managed or manager-managed), but under SC law, minority members can expect certain rights, including:
- The right to a share of distributed profits
- The right to a share of proceeds of a sale if the LLC is sold or dissolved in proportion to their ownership
- The right to see the company’s books and financial records
- The right to sue another member or members for breach of fiduciary duty if they engage in misconduct
These protections sound great but they may not play out the way you want in real life. For example, majority members may take an income as an employee (rather than a distribution as an owner) or spend the company’s money in another way to avoid making distributions to minority members. Or they could structure a sale of the LLC in such a way as to legally cut out a minority member from the proceeds.
In short, don’t rely on default South Carolina laws to protect your interests as a minority member in an LLC. It’s best to have governance documents including an operating agreement with terms that are favorable to minority members and for you as a minority member to know, understand, and agree to those terms.
How Minority Members Can Protect Themselves: The Operating Agreement
In South Carolina, the Articles of Incorporation is the only document your LLC is legally required to have to be in business. Other governing documents are optional but extremely important for multi-member LLCs, the most important of which is the operating agreement.
An operating agreement details the ways in which the LLC will operate, covering such topics as ownership, members’ and managers’ duties, voting rights, how decisions are made, how profits and losses are handled, and more. Terms regarding buying and selling ownership or the LLC may be included or can be handled in a separate buy-sell agreement. Same with raising capital, which may be included in the operating agreement or detailed in a separate capital call agreement.
It’s important to understand that an operating agreement is not bulletproof. Majority members may still try to squeeze out or freeze out a minority member. However, when drafted in a way that protects a minority member’s interests, an operating agreement can help. If an issue arises and goes to court, then the court will look at the terms of the operating agreement rather than defaulting to SC law, which will be better for you (assuming the agreement is drafted well).
Work with a Business Attorney to Draft Your LLC’s Governing Documents
Each LLC is different and the members within each LLC are different, so no two operating agreements are alike. If you’re planning on joining or starting up an LLC with other people, or if you’re already in one but don’t have governing documents, talk to a business attorney. They can not only draft an operating agreement (and other documents) tailored to you and your business, they can also advise you on potential pitfalls and situations you may not have considered. Because what you don’t know can hurt you.
Gem McDowell is a business attorney in Mount Pleasant, SC, serving clients in the Charleston area and across the state. He and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group help people start, grow, and protect their businesses and business interests. Gem is a problem solver who has seen a lot in over 30 years of experience, and he can advise you on your situation and help you protect your interests. To schedule a free consultation, call 843-284-1021 today.
Get It in Writing – It’s the Law
Please be advised that the Court assumed for purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment that all the facts the Plaintiff (Kagan) alleged were true in the light most favorable to him and without consideration of the Defendants Simchons’ version of the events to form the basis for their legal analysis.
Have you heard that oral contracts are legally binding? While many verbal agreements are valid and can be upheld in court, that’s not always the case. South Carolina law requires written contracts for certain types of agreements, and without evidence in writing, the contract cannot legally be enforced.
Still, some people, either not knowing the law or not seeing the need for a written contract, go ahead with a deal in good faith based on a verbal agreement and a handshake.
Jeffrey S. Kagan did so, lending large amounts of money on handshake deals, in a case (Kagan v Simchon) that was heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2019.
Can you guess how it turned out for him?
Lending Money Without a Written Contract
Kagan had a close relationship with Renee Simchon, the respondent in the case, and her husband, Sam. Kagan worked as an independent contractor for many years for Sam’s company, Bay Island Sportswear, Inc., which was next door to Simchon’s realty company, Greenwood Realty, in Greenwood, SC.
Over the years, Kagan occasionally loaned them money, including $129,000 in June 2009 (First Loan), $210,000 in October 2010 (Second Loan), and $52,000 in November 2013 (Third Loan). Kagan later stated that the agreements for the First Loan and Third Loan were not reduced to writing, but stated there was written evidence of the Second Loan.
Simchon used the money from the Second Loan to pay off a mortgage she held for one of her clients, and the plan was to repay the principal when the property was sold. Instead, after the sale of the property, Simchon wrote Kagan a check for $31,616.46 and gave the remaining $180,000 to her husband Sam to invest on Kagan’s behalf. Kagan later stated in a deposition that he did not authorize that transfer of money to Sam.
Kagan also believed that from this point, the First Loan and Second Loan were consolidated. When he made the Third Loan, he stated he believed that it was also consolidated with the first two. Again, this consolidation was not put down in writing, and was done on the basis of “a handshake, a look in the eye and a personal relationship.”
Sam made periodic payments until November 2013. In April 2014, Kagan’s employment with Sam’s shop was terminated.
Taking It to the Courts
In August 2015, Kagan filed summons and complaint seeking repayment on all three loans, alleging breach of contract and other actions. In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
The case was heard in circuit court in February 2016, in which Kagan’s claims regarding the First Loan and the Third Loan were dismissed after he admitted that the terms of these loans had not been reduced to writing. The case was heard again in circuit court in January 2017 after some claims were dismissed and Simchon remained as the only defendant. This time, the Second Loan was dismissed for the same reason; despite Kagan claiming that there was written evidence of the Second Loan, he was not able to produce it.
Without written evidence of the terms of the loans, the court was not able to enforce Kagan’s claims for repayment, citing Section 37-10-107 of South Carolina Code:
No person may maintain an action for legal or equitable relief […] to lend or borrow money; […] or […] to renew, modify, amend, or cancel a loan of money […] involving in any such case a principal amount in excess of fifty thousand dollars, unless the party seeking to maintain the action or defense has received a writing from the party to be charged containing the material terms and conditions of the […] agreement and the party to be charged, or its duly authorized agent, has signed the writing.
In short, if you make a business deal that involves lending, borrowing, renewing, modifying, amending, or canceling a loan over $50,000, you must have the agreement written down and signed to be legally enforceable. (Note that this does not apply to “a loan of money used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,” per 37-10-107(3)(a).)
The circuit court thus granted Simchon’s motion for summary judgment. The case was appealed and heard by the SC Court of Appeals in May 2019.
The Statute of Frauds in South Carolina
The circuit court cited the statute of frauds (SOF) as the reason for barring or dismissing Kagan’s claims. SOF requires that certain types of agreements be written down and signed to be enforceable. The concept comes from common law and is present in every state in one form or another.
In South Carolina, the statute of frauds is found in SC Code Title 32 Chapter 3. Agreements that must be reduced to writing and signed by an authorized party are those:
- Requiring an executor or administrator to pay damages from their own estate
- Requiring a person to pay the debt of another
- Made in the consideration of marriage (i.e., prenuptial agreements)
- Involving the contract or sale of land
- That take longer than a year to perform
In addition, Section 36-2-201(1) requires a contract recording the sale of goods valued over $500 in order for any related action to be enforceable, and, as seen above, Section 37-10-107 requires written evidence to enforce actions on lending or borrowing $50,000 or more in business deals, or making changes to the agreement related to it.
Kagan argued that the circuit court erred because Simchon used the money from the Second Loan to pay off a mortgage that was in her name – not that of her realty company – therefore making it a personal loan that wasn’t subject to 37-10-107.
The SC Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that even if the mortgage was in her own name, the money was “used” (the word in the statute, the court notes) on behalf of a client in the course of business, making it subject to 37-10-107. The Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court’s finding that Kagan’s claim with respect to the Second Loan was therefore barred.
The Statute of Limitations in South Carolina
The circuit court found that Kagan’s breach of contract claim was barred because of the statute of limitations (SOL), or the time allowed by law in which to bring a legal claim. Kagan argued that the circuit court erred, saying that Sam’s payments on the loans tolled the statute of limitations until the payments stopped.
“Tolling” means pausing or delaying the time left on the SOL. Tolling may allow someone to bring a lawsuit even after the SOL has seemingly run out.
However, in this case, the appeals court did not agree that the SOL was tolled, as that would have depended on the loans being consolidated. If you remember, Kagan stated that he believed all three loans were consolidated. He also stated that the terms of the consolidation were never written down – and that’s the problem.
The appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s finding, again citing 37-10-107, which states (as discussed above) that any amendment or modification to a loan over $50,000 must be in writing to be enforceable. Without the terms in writing, there is no tolling of the SOL.
The SOL therefore began when Simchon breached their agreement by failing to transfer the remainder of the money from the sale of the property to Kagan. This happened on March 21, 2011, and since the SOL for a breach of contract claim in South Carolina is three years, Kagan had until March 21, 2014 to file. He didn’t until August 2015, nearly a year and a half after the SOL had run out.
Get Help with Your Contracts
The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order to grant summary judgment to Simchon. Unfortunately for Kagan, he wasn’t able to use the force of the law to help him recover the outstanding money he was owed. This could have been avoided had he gotten everything in writing.
Contracts exist for a reason, and a correctly written one can save you time, money, and heartache. Don’t rely on a handshake or the goodwill you have with another party when making a deal, especially when there’s a substantial amount of money on the line. Work with an attorney to ensure that your interests are looked after and protected.
Business attorney Gem McDowell of the McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC, serves clients in the greater Charleston area and the state of South Carolina. He and his associates can help you with contracts, business creation and planning, commercial real estate, and more. To make an appointment or to schedule a free 20-minute consultation with an attorney, call Gem and his team today at 843-284-1021.
Accretion and Property Rights on Sullivan’s Island
Imagine you own beachfront property in South Carolina just steps away from the ocean. Now imagine that over time, the distance between your home and the ocean gets larger and larger as the beach grows, putting you further and further from the water.
This was the situation for homeowners on Sullivan’s Island, a small island town just outside Charleston, SC. They sued the town in a case that was heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court in November 2019, Bluestein vs. Town of Sullivan’s Island. At the center of the case was the concept of accretion.
Accretion
South Carolina’s coastline is subject to a number of natural phenomena including erosion and accretion. Erosion occurs when sand, sediment, and other land matter is carried away from the coast, causing the beach to shrink as the high-water line creeps further in. It’s caused by strong waves, storm surge, and coastal flooding.
The contrary of this is accretion, where sand, sediment, and other land matter is deposited on the coast by the waves. Over time, this causes the beach to grow bigger.
Sullivan’s Island experiences both of these forces, with erosion affecting the coastline in the northern part of the island and accretion affecting the southern and central areas.
Suing Over the Town’s Approach to Managing Accretion
Accretion is a natural phenomenon, so what’s the basis for someone to sue over it? While accretion is something that can’t be controlled by humans, the consequences of it can be.
In the case at hand, two couples – Nathan Bluestein and Ettaleah Bluestein, MD, and Theodore Albenesius and Karen Albenesius (collectively, the Petitioners) – brought a suit against the Town of Sullivan’s Island and Sullivan’s Island Town Council (collectively, the Town).
The Petitioners separately bought front-row property on Sullivan’s Island, the Bluesteins around 1980, the Albenesiuses around 2009. Their properties were considered oceanfront when purchased and were a short distance from the shoreline. Today, due to accretion, the shoreline is much further away from their homes, approximately 500 feet or more. (In a footnote in its opinion, the court notes that the rate of accretion is approximately 17 feet per year.)
This does not mean that the Petitioners’ properties have increased – the land between their properties and the shoreline doesn’t belong to them. That property is subject to a 1991 deed, created in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo, under which the Town has duties to upkeep the land.
How to interpret the deed was the main issue in the case, with the court noting “The parties have cherrypicked language from the 1991 deed which ostensibly supports their respective interpretations of the deed.”
The Town’s Duties to the Land
The Petitioners argue that the 1991 deed means the Town should keep the vegetation on that land between their properties and the shoreline in the same condition as it was in 1991. In 1991, the vegetation was mostly sea oats and wild flowers, no taller than 3 feet high. In contrast, the Town argues that the deed gives it unfettered license to allow the vegetation to grow unchecked, which is what it has done.
Over the years, a maritime forest has grown up on that land. The tall and thick vegetation harbors coyotes, snakes, and other “varmints” (in the word of the court) and is a fire hazard, complain the Petitioners. The Petitioners also complain that their homes are taxed like beachfront property, but they now have no ocean views or ocean breezes due to the vegetation growth and are farther away from the ocean. In the case heard by the Court of Appeals, they claimed their properties have lost more than $1,000,000 in value because of this.
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Town in its decision, which the Supreme Court reversed in its February 2020 decision, remanding the case. The Supreme Court stated that this case can’t be settled as a matter of law, as the 1991 deed is too ambiguous, and there are still issues of material fact that must first be resolved.
Just recently, in October 2020, the parties reached a settlement resolution together, ending further litigation. As described in the settlement, the Town will “implement selective thinning of the Accreted Land” zone by zone using funds from the Town, Plaintiffs, and Homeowners. This should mitigate the effects of accretion on the property in question. Read about the full settlement resolution here.
Caring for Land in the Public Interest
As South Carolina residents, we all have an interest in the health of our coastlines, even if we live far from the beach. Just as we saw in the case covered on this blog about the Public Trust Doctrine, it’s up to the entities in charge of these precious stretches of land to balance the needs of the individuals who live there with the public good, while respecting Mother Nature.
Marketability and Minority Discounts in South Carolina Courts
If you’re a part owner of a closely held corporation, it can be challenging to determine the dollar value of your interest in it. Not only do closely held corporations not make their finances public, making it difficult to know the company’s value as a whole, but your interest in it could be subject to discounts – like a marketability discount or a minority discount – that reduce the value to less than you might expect.
A case heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court, Clark v Clark, discussed both marketability discounts and minority discounts (also called lack of control discounts) in the context of a divorce, illuminating how SC courts consider and evaluate such discounts.
First let’s look at the methods used to determine the value of closely held corporations, then what the discounts are, then the case itself.
Methods to determine value a closely held company
The value of a closely held corporation and an interest in it can be determined by a few different methods.
Income approach. This method examines the company’s past earnings in order to project future earnings. This approach is popular because it looks at something that’s of interest to the potential buyer: how much money they can expect to see from their investment. However, it ultimately relies on making predictions about the future which no one can really know, which is the primary disadvantage.
Value, asset, or book approach. This method adds together the value of assets (minus depreciation) and then subtracts liabilities. It’s simple and straightforward and doesn’t require any guessing, but it fails to take many factors into consideration, such as a company’s brand recognition, customer goodwill, and other intangible but important factors.
Market approach. This method compares the private company in question to public companies that are similar in size, industry, and so on to come to a value. This approach works well when there are public companies that are similar enough to the closely held corporation to make a fair comparison, but it’s a poor choice when there aren’t.
Discounts on Interest in Closely Held Corporation
Two common discounts that can be applied to an owner’s partial interest in a closely held business are the lack of marketability discount (also called, simply, the marketability discount) and the lack of lack of control discount (also called the minority discount).
Marketability discount. This discount may be applied since there’s typically a significantly smaller market of potential buyers for privately held stock compared to publicly held stock. The transaction usually takes longer and involves higher transaction costs, too.
Lack of control/minority discount. Similarly, this discount recognizes that being a partial owner without controlling interest in a company is much less appealing than owning a controlling share. (In fact, control is so important in closely held businesses that controlling interests can sell for more than face value due to what’s called “premium for control.”)
Background of Clark v Clark
In the case at hand, Clark v Clark, the central issue is the value of the minority interest held by Patricia Clark in her husband George Clark’s family business.
The two married in 1987 and filed for divorce in 2012. At the time of the divorce, George owned 75% of the family business his father founded in the late 1980s, Pure Country, Inc., which manufactures and sells custom tapestry, blankets, afghans, and so forth. George had been 100% owner after his father died but then transferred 25% interest to Patricia in 2009 when she approached him about getting equity in the company. The stock agreement for the transfer restricted her ability to sell her interest “to the business, other shareholders, or immediate family members.”
Putting a value on Patricia’s equity
In an 8-day bench trial, George and Patricia called separate experts to testify as to the value of Patricia’s 25% interest in Pure Country, Inc. George’s expert, Catherine Stoddard, used three different approaches to determine the value and explained her reasoning to the court.
- The income approach led to an initial value of Patricia’s 25% at $116,365. Stoddard then applied a 35% marketability discount to account for the issues discussed above as well as the specific stock agreement in this situation that limited Patricia’s ability to sell her interest to select buyers.
- The asset approach valued the entire company at $736,000 and Patricia’s share, with a marketability discount and a lack of control discount applied, at $83,725.
- The market approach led to a value of $65,430 for Patricia’s 25% interest.
Stoddard determined that $75,000 was the appropriate value. This included both discounts.
Patricia’s expert, Marcus Hodge, came to a different conclusion. He compared the company to other companies he believed were comparable – also in the mill industry in North Carolina, as Pure Country, Inc. was – but didn’t show how they were indeed comparable in terms of size, scope, and lines of manufacturing. He valued the entire company at $1.8 million and applied a 26% marketability discount, but later said it should not be discounted. Hodge did not apply a minority discount.
The family court debated whether or not discounts should be applied since the business was not actually going to be sold. Ultimately, it found Stoddard to be more credible and agreed that Patricia’s 25% interest was worth $75,000.
The SC Court of Appeals heard the case and affirmed the family court’s decision to apply a lack of control discount. However, it rejected the marketability discount, in part because there was no evidence that George planned to sell the company, and it wasn’t appropriate to engage in the “fiction” that the business was going to be sold.
The Supreme Court hears the case
Both parties appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina heard the case in December 2019.
The supreme court agreed with the family court that a marketability discount did apply. Whether or not the company is actually going to be sold, “a party’s interest in a closely held corporation is valued according to its fair market value.” That amount is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in a sale. It’s not required that be business will actually be put up for sale, but that fiction is a helpful way to determine the value of a company or interest in it. In a footnote in the opinion, the court states, “South Carolina embraces fair market value, which is not controlled by an owner’s intent—rather it reflects the time it would take to sell the asset in question.”
However, it doesn’t mean that a marketability discount need apply in every situation. South Carolina has recognized that its applicability can and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The supreme court believes the best approach is to allow the family court or trial court judges the discretion to apply them depending on the facts of the case before them. In this case, the supreme court agreed with the family court that George’s expert, Catherine Stoddard, was more credible.
The supreme court also agreed with the family court that a lack of control discount applies here. Patricia argued that because her 25% interest would be going to George, making him 100% owner of the company, the lack of control discount should not apply. But the supreme court stated that “the minority status certainly affects an asset’s fair market value” so it’s appropriate for courts to consider applying them.
The supreme court ultimately found that the appropriate value of Patricia’s 25% interest was $86,226.
Dissenting opinion
Three justices agreed with the majority opinion, while two disagreed in an interesting dissent. They believed that neither discount should have been applied in this case. The similarities to a previous case, Moore v Moore – in which the share in question would go to the individual who owns the rest of the company, and there’s no intent to sell – are strong enough that it makes sense to follow the conclusions of that case, in which neither discount was applied. Since Patricia’s 25% would go to George, who owns the other 75%, there is no real, actual possible devaluation of her interest. Therefore, it’s not appropriate to apply either discount in this case.
Business Advice from an Experienced Business Attorney
For business legal advice on protecting your majority or minority shareholder status in a closely held corporation, work with an experienced business attorney like Gem McDowell. Gem has over 30 years of experience helping people start, grow, and protect their businesses. He and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group can help you, too. Call the Mount Pleasant office today at 843-284-1021 to schedule a free consultation.
What Does It Take to Prove Undue Influence when Contesting a Will?
Undue influence is one of the most common reasons a last will may be found invalid in South Carolina, along with procedural errors and lack of testamentary capacity. (Read more about all three on our blog here.) When someone pressures or coerces the testator – the person making their will – to create or change the terms of the will in their favor, that’s undue influence. A will that’s the result of undue influence can be voided by the court.
But having a will declared invalid isn’t easy. There’s a presumption that a will is valid, as long as the testator was of sound mind and followed the correct procedures when executing it. In South Carolina, if someone wants to challenge the validity of a last will on the grounds of undue influence, the burden of proof is on the person challenging the will.
This can be difficult because, in the words of the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Gunnells v. Harkness, “our courts have recognized that ‘the evidence of undue influence will be mainly circumstantial’ because undue influence is often exercised behind closed doors, preventing any direct proof.”
With this in mind, how difficult is it to show undue influence, and what does it take to convince the court to set aside a will?
What Undue Influence Looks Like
As stated above, there’s rarely direct evidence of undue influence, such as video or audio recordings of the influencer coercing the testator to change their will. But there are behaviors that indicate undue influence, and that’s what the court looks for.
Influencers may use force, threats, and psychological or emotional manipulation to get what they want. Isolating the testator from friends or family members is a common tactic used by influencers. Threatening to restrict visits from children, grandchildren, friends, and other loved ones is another.
In many cases, the testator is older and the influencer is younger, which can create a power imbalance. The testator may be experiencing cognitive decline that makes them more susceptible to pressures of undue influence. Or they may be dependent on the influencer for their health and well-being, relying on them for food, medication, transportation, and so on. The influencer may be a child who seeks to have the testator leave their entire estate to them and disinherit other would-be heirs, or a caregiver or other individual who is close to the testator.
Courts also look for evidence of a fiduciary relationship between the two parties, which is where one party places special trust and confidence in the other. The existence of such a relationship creates a presumption of undue influence.
Case in Point: Gunnells v Harkness
Since the evidence is typically circumstantial, and the burden of proof is on the party challenging the will, what kind of evidence is needed to prove undue influence when contesting a last will?
In a case heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in June 2019, Gunnells v. Harkness, a disinherited child successfully challenged the validity of her deceased mother’s last will on the grounds of undue influence. We’ll look at the evidence closely to see just how much was needed to convince the court that the will was invalid.
Here’s the background. Helen B. Gunnells (Helen) and her husband Aiken Arden Gunnells (Arden) were married for many years and had three children, Glenn, Cathy, and Belinda. In 2006, Helen executed a last will and testament that left her estate to her husband Arden, or, if he did not survive her, in equal parts to the three children.
In March 2013, Glenn moved in with his parents to help care for them, and in June, Arden died. Less than a month after Arden’s death, Helen executed another will, with the help of a lawyer suggested by Glenn. In contrast to the 2006 will, the 2013 will left the estate to Glenn and cut out Cathy and Belinda entirely.
Helen died the following February. Glenn applied for informal probate of the 2013 will, a process in which the estate is probated without any involvement from the court.
Challenging the Validity of the Will
In July 2014, Cathy filed a petition opposing probate of the 2013 will, arguing it was the result of undue influence. The probate court held a hearing in March 2016 in which it heard testimony from several parties. It ultimately determined that the 2013 will was indeed the product of undue influence and was voided. The 2006 will, which left Helen’s estate in equal shares to all three of her children, was reinstated.
Glenn appealed the probate court’s decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the probate court’s decision in April 2017. He appealed again, and the case was heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in June 2019.
Proving Undue Influence
In its opinion, the SC Court of Appeals cites previous cases to set the bar for undue influence:
“The undue influence necessary to invalidate a will must reach a level of force and coercion, not ‘the influence of affection and attachment’ nor ‘the mere desire of gratifying the wishes of another.’”
If you believe a family member’s will was the result of undue influence and you want to have it voided, pay attention to the amount and the type of evidence presented in this case for an idea of what it takes to successfully prove undue influence.
In this case, the evidence supporting the existence of undue influence primarily came from Helen’s brother Brantley, Helen’s close friend Carroll, and her daughters Cathy and Belinda.
Concerns about the will
- The 2013 will is substantially different from the 2006 will; while the earlier one left her estate in equal parts to all three children should her husband predecease her, the more recent one left the entire estate to one child and disinherited the other two
- Carroll stated that Helen told her she didn’t want to make a new will but said “I had no choice,” saying Glenn told her she had to
- Cathy said that on the day Helen died, Glenn said to her, “you’re going to be surprised [with] what’s in the new will. I have everything.”
- Brantley sent a letter “To Whom It May Concern” expressing concerns over the way Helen had changed, especially around Glenn, the day after Glenn applied for probate of the 2013 will
Isolation and restricted visitation
- Brantley, Carroll, Cathy, and Belinda all testified that Glenn restricted Helen’s communication and visitation. Helen stopped calling them, rarely answered the phone herself when they called her, and seemed “very hesitant” to talk once Glenn moved in.
- Brantley said he asked Helen to call Cathy because she was scheduled to have surgery soon, but Helen told Brantley that she’d have to ask Glenn, because Glenn didn’t like her talking to Cathy
- Brantley said that in a conversation about having Cathy and Belinda help with their mother’s care, Glenn told him he didn’t want his sisters at the house
- Brantley visited after Arden’s death and found Glenn had made the downstairs living room into his bedroom and had installed a video surveillance system with cameras all over the property
- Carroll said Glenn wouldn’t let her speak to Helen if he answered the phone when she called
- Carroll said Helen told her she couldn’t talk on the phone the way she could before her husband died
- Carroll said Helen told her she wanted to visit her sister in Georgia but Glenn wouldn’t take her (Helen was apparently wheelchair-bound and relied on Glenn for transportation)
- Belinda stated Glenn never told her about her father’s failing health, and that’s when she first started noticing a change in communication with her parents
- Belinda stated she received a forceful email from Glenn saying that nothing would be signed or initialized without him looking at it after she put her name and her sister’s name on the hospital visitation list when their father was sick
- Belinda went to her parents’ house after her father’s death to get the death certificate, which Glenn had put it in a plastic bag and hung it from the front door. When she knocked to come in, Glenn told her she couldn’t see their mother and after arguing, Glenn threatened to call the police on her. Cathy remembered this incident, too.
- Cathy said Glenn threatened to have her arrested for harassment if she went to see Helen
- Cathy had keys to her mother’s house that she used to get in until Glenn changed the locks and told Cathy she wasn’t welcome anymore unless he was present
- Cathy tried to call her mother several times but stated Glenn would answer, tell her she wasn’t allowed to talk to her, “laugh[,] and hang up”
One or even a few of these would likely not rise to the level of undue influence. But with all of the testimony taken together, which collectively shows a pattern of behavior on the part of Glenn with respect to his mother, the SC Court of Appeals found there was enough evidence to support undue influence and affirmed the circuit court’s decision.
It’s worth noting that the court did find evidence of a fiduciary relationship between Glenn and Helen – he had power of attorney and added his name to his mother’s bank accounts after his father died – but ultimately determined that Glenn presented evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence on these grounds.
Help with Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning in South Carolina
A last will is one of the most important legal documents you will ever sign. This is especially true if you have a large estate and/or a complex family situation. There are things you can do when creating your estate plan to make it as solid as possible and reduce the chances of lawsuits over your estate in the future.
For help creating or amending your estate plan, call estate planning attorney Gem McDowell of the Gem McDowell Law Group. He and his associates have helped many families create the wills, trusts, powers of attorney, and other documents they need for peace of mind. Call him at his Mt. Pleasant office at 843-284-1021 today to schedule a free consultation.
What Happens If You Sell the Same Land to Two Separate Parties? Specific Performance as a Remedy
When seeking justice through the courts, a person or party who has been wronged may receive compensation to help right that wrong. That compensation may be a “legal remedy,” which means it can take the form of monetary damages, or it may be an “equitable remedy,” which includes remedies that don’t involve money. Specific performance is one such equitable remedy.
Specific performance was at the heart of a case that was heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in February 2020, Shirey v Bishop, in which a woman entered into two agreements to sell the same piece of land to two parties.
Specific Performance as an Equitable Remedy
Specific performance is a legal concept where the court can order a party to perform a specific act. The performance of the specific act is the equitable remedy that compensates the injured party for the wrong done to them.
Usually, the specific act is the completion of a contract they were already party to and is most commonly seen in cases involving the sale or purchase of land. That’s because the law considers land unique; even if the injured party were awarded monetary damages, they would not be able to purchase a piece of land identical to the one in question, because every piece of land is different.
Specific performance may also be compelled in cases not relating to real estate. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a set of laws adopted by all 50 states and D.C. that standardizes commerce laws between the states, does allow for specific performance as a remedy to the buyer in some cases. “Specific performance may be decreed where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances” (SC Code Section 36-2-716). However, in practice, specific performance as a remedy is rarely used in cases not involving the conveyance of land.
Selling the Same Land to Two Separate Parties
We can see specific performance in action in Shirey v Bishop.
The background: Gwen G. Bishop and her husband ran a grave digging and burial vault business together for over 30 years from a property (the Property) located in Newberry County, SC. After her husband’s death in 2010, Bishop ran the business by herself, but soon decided she no longer wanted to continue.
In April 2012, Bishop agreed to sell the Property to her niece, Cassandra Robinson. They entered into a contract under which Robinson agreed to pay Bishop’s mortgage until it was satisfied. (The mortgage holder, TD Bank, was not notified of this arrangement and did not agree to it.) The contract was never recorded.
A few years later, in late 2014 or early 2015, Bishop then entered into an agreement to sell the Property to Robert G. Shirey, even though she had already previously entered into a contract to sell it to her niece.
Shirey and Bishop signed a contract (the Shirey Contract) in which Shirey agreed to buy the land for $125,000, including $1,000 in earnest money. The contract included a provision that the closing must occur “no earlier than Aug 3, 2015 [,] and no later than Aug 12, 2015.”
They set the date of closing for August 12, 2015. Shirey brought a check for $122,976.92 to his attorney’s office and waited for Bishop to arrive for the closing to complete the transaction. She never showed up.
Shirey’s attorney then called Bishop and asked if the closing period could be extended to the following day, the 13th. Bishop agreed, and a new appointment for the closing was set.
Once again, Bishop did not show up. Her doctor sent a note to Shirey’s attorney asking to excuse Bishop from the closing.
But that same afternoon, when she should have been closing the deal with Shirey, Bishop entered into a second contract to sell the Property to Robinson. Robinson agreed to purchase the Property for $33,000 and assume the mortgage. Bishop executed a deed conveying the Property to Robinson, and Robinson recorded the deed the same day.
The Case is Heard by a Special Referee
On August 20, 2015, Shirey filed a complaint against Bishop requesting specific performance of the Shirey Contract plus attorney’s fees. He later amended his complaint to add TD Bank (the mortgage holder) and Robinson after he discovered the deed conveying the land from Bishop to Robinson.
In March 2017, the case was heard by a special referee. (A special referee is lawyer who has expert knowledge in a particular field and may hear cases where the law is clear but the facts are in dispute. They judge on the facts and bind the parties to a decision.)
In May 2017, the special referee found in favor of Shirey, setting aside the deed to Robinson, awarding attorney’s fees to Shirey, and ordering specific performance of the Shirey Contract. This means that Bishop and Shirey would need to carry out the terms of their contract and Robinson would lose the Property.
Bishop and Robinson appealed.
Requirements for Specific Performance
Quoting another case, the SC Court of Appeals states in its opinion:
“In order to compel specific performance, a court of equity must find (1) clear evidence of an agreement; (2) that the agreement has been partly carried into execution on one side with the approbation of the other; and (3) that the party who comes to compel performance has performed on his part, or has been and remains able and willing to perform his part of the contract.” (Gibson v Hrysikos, 1987)
The Appellants raised a few arguments against the validity of the special referee’s awarding of specific performance, including these two: 1, there was no valid contract for the conveyance of the land from Bishop to Shirey and 2, Shirey had not demonstrated that he was able to perform the contract.
Contract Validity and the Statute of Frauds
The Statute of Frauds (SOF) requires certain types of agreements to be in writing and signed in order to be enforced by law. Under this statute, contracts involving land must be written down. Furthermore, modifications or amendments to the agreement must also be in writing to be enforceable.
In this case, the Appellants argue that the special referee erred in finding Shirey was entitled to specific performance because there was no valid contract, a valid contract being the first of three requirements to compel specific performance, as stated above.
They argue that the Shirey Contract was no longer valid because the closing did not happen within the period specified in the contract. After Bishop failed to show up at the closing on August 12th – the last day that the deal could go through, according to the Shirey Contract – Shirey’s attorney called her and they agreed to extend the closing period by one day. This was an oral agreement and was not written down.
So, does this make the Shirey Contract invalid under the SOF? It’s a very interesting legal question but unfortunately, we don’t get an answer. It’s well established that an issue cannot be brought up anew on appeal, and that’s what happened here. The SC Court of Appeals dismisses the argument because the Appellants did not bring it up to the special referee nor did they bring it up in their answers to Shirey’s complaint.
Capability of Performing the Contract
The Appellants also argue that Shirey did not demonstrate he was capable of performing his obligations under the Shirey Contract both at the time of closing and when he brought the legal action. Ability and willingness on the part of the complainant to perform their part of the contract is the third of three requirements to compel specific performance, as stated above.
Shirey argues that he fulfilled his obligations under the Shirey Contract by tendering the purchase price on August 12, 2015, the original closing date, when he brought a check for the purchase price to his attorney’s office. He had also put down $1,000 in earnest money. At the time of the appeal, he was still ready, willing, and able to go through with the Shirey Contract. Therefore, the SC Court of Appeals agreed with Shirey.
The Importance of Legal Help for Real Estate Contracts
Finding that all three requirements to compel specific performance were satisfied, the SC Court of Appeals affirmed the special referee’s grant of specific performance. The deed from Bishop to Robinson will be set aside and the Property will be sold to Shirey.
Most people know better than to enter into multiple contracts to sell the same piece of land to different parties. Still, real estate law can be complex, and getting the right help with real estate transactions, particularly in business, is crucial.
Gem McDowell is a commercial real estate attorney and business attorney with nearly 30 years of experience in the law. He has closed over $1 billion worth of real estate deals, including a single deal of $270,000,000. Along with his extensive experience, he’s also a problem solver who can help you grow and protect your business. To schedule an appointment or a free 20-minute consultation on your issue, call Gem and his team at his Mount Pleasant, SC office at 843-284-1021 today.
Doing Good While Making Money: Benefit Corporations in South Carolina
You’ve heard of C-corps and S-corps, but what about B Corps?
B Corp is short for benefit corporation, a type of for-profit business entity that is regulated by state law. Currently, 35 states and DC have enacted legislation to create benefit corporations, including South Carolina.
As stated in the 2012 South Carolina Benefit Corporation Act (find it here), “a benefit corporation shall have as one of its corporate purposes the creation of a general public benefit.” Here, “general public benefit” is defined as “a material positive impact on society and the environment taken as a whole.”
Who Benefits from a Benefit Corporation?
Traditionally, corporations are run with the primary driver of making money for their shareholders. High-level decisions are made with this question in mind: How can we maximize profits for the benefit of the shareholders? Though it’s not actually a legal requirement for corporations to make the most money possible, this is often the way it works in the real world. After all, a CEO who doesn’t make enough money for the shareholders can be ousted by the board of directors.
But in a B Corp, making money is not the primary driving force. Instead, business decisions are guided, in part, by the desire to create a particular benefit in the world.
Examples of some benefits that a B Corp might have include:
- Donating a portion of income to charitable causes
- Operating in a way to reduce environmental impact or actively preserve the environment
- Providing goods and services to a specific group of people such as low-income families
- Providing employment and economic opportunities for underserved groups
- Promoting education or awareness of a certain subject
- Advancing the welfare of other groups besides in addition to the shareholders, like the employees, the customers, or particular minority groups
A well-known business that’s also a B Corp is Patagonia, which amended their articles of incorporation in 2012 to include a commitment to sustainability and treating workers well. Ben & Jerry’s also became a B Corp in 2012, with a goal of advancing social change for good.
What It Means to Be a B Corp
The decision to be a B Corp is a big one. It can drastically change the way you approach decisions and run your business. Of course, that’s the exact reason why some people want to run a B Corp.
For instance, let’s say your stated public benefit is to protect the environment. You may choose packing for your product that is biodegradable and more environmentally-friendly but is more expensive to produce. A regular corporation may be bound to sticking with less environmentally-friendly options, because that’s the decision that maximizes profits and increases shareholder value. But as a B Corp with a stated intention of helping the environment, you can choose to forsake some of those profits for the public benefit of a better environment.
Requirements for Becoming and Being a B Corp
Entrepreneurs can incorporate their business as a benefit corporation in South Carolina by including a provision in its articles of incorporation that it is a benefit corporation and specifying its benefit purpose. Existing entities can also become B Corps by changing their status.
In South Carolina, there are some requirements that come along with being a benefit corporation. One is the submission of an annual report to the Secretary of State which must include, among other things, an assessment of the business against a third-party standard. Though the law says that a B Corp need not have an outside party certify them, there are organizations that do that, such as the independent nonprofit B Lab.
Additionally, a director on the board must be the elected and serve as the benefit director, and you may also have an officer designated as the benefit officer. (The same person can fill both roles at the same time.) Their roles and duties are described by law, but in short, both are responsible for making sure that the company is carrying out its mission as a benefit corporation in terms of the benefits it creates.
Advantages and Disadvantages
As with all types of business entities, there are pros and cons of being a B Corp.
Pros of being a B Corp:
- Furthering a cause you believe in and making a positive change in the world through your company
- Ability to make decisions in your company that align with your values rather than focusing solely on making more money
- Attracting and working with talented people who share the same values (especially important to younger workers who increasingly want to work at ethical, mission-driven companies)
- Attracting impact investors
- Good for public relations and consumer perception of your business
- Being part of a values-based global movement
- If you change your mind later, you can easily drop your B Corp your status
Cons of being a B Corp:
- Additional burdens of paperwork, certification, and maintaining benefit director and benefit officer roles
- Converting to a B Corp may be difficult for existing publicly traded companies (which is why Etsy gave up its B Corp status and Warby Parker did, too)
- Uncertainty due to how new B Corps are, and the potential increase in liability exposure
Though there many more advantages than disadvantages listed here, the disadvantages still merit consideration.
However, if you are driven to do good via your business and you want more control over how your company can make that happen, a B Corp is something to look into.
Is Becoming a B Corp Right for Your Business?
Changing your status or incorporating as a B Corp is a big step. Before taking that step, speak to an experienced business attorney like Gem McDowell. Gem has over 25 years of experience working with clients, giving them strategic advice on how to start, grow, and protect their businesses. Contact Gem and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant to schedule your free consultation by calling 843-284-1021 today.
Can Your HOA Foreclose on Your Home for Non-Payment of Dues?
Losing your home in a foreclosure because you missed a $250 HOA payment – can that actually happen? Is it even legal?
Yes and yes. This exact situation happened to Tina and Devery Hale. Our past two blogs went into detail on their case, Winrose Homeowners’ Association v Hale (read the opinion here), which went before the South Carolina Supreme Court in 2019. Those blogs are linked here and here.
But we’re not done yet because there’s even more to it. This case exposes bad parties acting in bad faith that every homeowner should be aware of.
Can Your HOA Take Your Home for Non-Payment of Dues?
Did you know that it’s not only the bank that has the power to foreclose on your home? It may seem absurd that your HOA can foreclose on your home because you missed paying your assessment, but it is legal in South Carolina and it does happen.
In the Winrose case, the Hales agreed to the following covenants and restrictions when they bought their house:
“If the [HOA dues] assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the delinquency date, the assessment shall bear interest from the date of delinquency at the rate of eight percent per annum, and the [HOA] may bring legal action against the owner personally obligated to pay the same or may enforce or foreclose the lien against the lot or lots […]”
The HOA was within their legal rights to do what they did. However, that doesn’t mean the SC Supreme Court was happy about it.
HOAs Making a Buck Off Unsuspecting Homeowners
Typically, once the court has stated its decision, that’s the end of the opinion. But not here. Writing the opinion for Winrose v Hale, Justice Kittredge had more to say. “We note our concern about this foreclosure proceeding,” he begins.
Recognizing the right of the HOA to pursue a lien and a foreclosure on the Hales’ house, the court characterizes this as a tactic to “capitalize on a small debt.” Though the amount past due was small, the HOA’s attorney went straight to the strongest measures possible as a next step – placing a lien and foreclosing on a house valued at $128,000 for a past due amount of $250.
Why? “The true nature of this foreclosure action is illustrated by the service and filing fees (which are more than double the amount of the principal due) and attorney’s fees (which were eight times the amount of the principal due),” writes the court (emphasis original). “A foreclosure proceeding is a last resort, not a business model to be swiftly invoked for the purpose of exploiting property owners.”
The Hales’ HOA was willing to let them lose their home and their equity in it in order to make some money in fees. Luckily for The Hales, they got their house back in the end, but that’s not always how this scenario plays out. Many people have lost their homes to HOA foreclosures.
Buyers Extorting Homeowners
The HOA was not the only bad actor here; the court was also “especially troubled” by the actions of the party that bought the Hales’ home, Regime Solutions, LLC.
In the majority of judicial sales, like the kind that was used to sell the Hales’ home, the purchaser of the foreclosed home takes on the property’s mortgage and other debts. This is necessary because the house is only free and clear once the associated debts are settled.
But Regime never took on the Hales’ mortgage. Not only that, but their business model appears to be based on not assuming the mortgage of the properties it purchases. After buying a foreclosure at a very low price, Regime either lets the bank foreclose on the property or it negotiates with the homeowners to let them have their house back for a large fee.
Between 2013-2016, Regime bought 38 properties that were later foreclosed on by the bank and 15 properties that it gave back to the original owners through a quitclaim deed for a profit of between $2,911-$13,984 per property. In the present case, the Hales offered to pay Regime $9,000 to settle the matter, but Regime asked for $35,000. The Hales didn’t pay it.
Summing up this section, the court states, “We do not countenance the improper use of foreclosure proceedings by the HOA, its attorney, or Regime” (emphasis original).
Could This Happen to You?
Yes, possibly. Depending on what covenants and restrictions you agreed to with your own HOA or regime, you could potentially find yourself in a similar situation as the Hales.
What can you do to avoid it?
First, make good decisions. Towards the end of its opinion, the court states “Our decision today should not be read as a shift toward providing relief to homeowners despite their own poor choices, in particular here, falling behind on a minimal amount of HOA dues and subsequently failing to respond to the summons and complaint.”
So take action on any and all legal matters that come your way. Fulfill your legal obligations as you promised to do in a timely manner by paying your mortgage and dues on time every month. Don’t assume that there could be no legal ramifications to paying late just because it’s a relatively small amount of money. This thinking can get you in trouble.
Next, review the paperwork you signed with your HOA or regime. It’s common for buyers to skim over these documents during a long real estate closing and therefore have no idea what it is they’re actually agreeing to. But you can take the time now to look at your covenants so you’re aware of the powers your HOA or regime has to charge you interest, place a lien on your property, pursue a foreclosure, and so on.
Finally, contact an attorney if you have any questions, especially if you’ve been served with papers.
Smart Legal Advice
If you need help with estate planning, business documents, commercial real estate, or strategic advice in a legal matter, contact Gem and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC. Gem is a problem solver with over 35 years of experience helping families and business owners alike protect their interests and make smart decisions for peace of mind. Schedule a free consultation by calling 843-284-1021 today.
What Makes a “Grossly Inadequate” Sales Price: The Debt Method vs. the Equity Method
In South Carolina, a judicial sale of a property can be set aside if the sales price is “inadequate.” Either the sales price must be “inadequate” and also involve fraud, or the price must be “so grossly inadequate so as to shock the conscience of the court.”
What makes a sales price “grossly inadequate”? Just how low does it have to be? In South Carolina, there is no set amount or percentage that a court must apply to make that determination. However, looking back at past cases in the state, courts have consistently determined that sales prices of 10% or less of the property’s value are “grossly inadequate.”
Based on this, the 10% threshold was used as a benchmark in Winrose Homeowners’ Association v Hale (read the opinion here) which went before the South Carolina Supreme Court in 2019, and which we discussed in a previous blog.
How to Calculate the Sales Price: Debt Method vs Equity Method
In Winrose, Tina and Devery Hale’s home was sold in a judicial sale after they missed an HOA payment of $250 and their HOA foreclosed. Regime Solutions, LLC, bought it with a high bid of $3,036. The fair market value of the house was $128,000, with an unpaid mortgage balance of $66,004.
Since fraud was not an issue in this case, the question for the court to decide was whether the sales price of the house in question was “so grossly inadequate” that the sale could be set aside. If so, the foreclosure could be vacated and the home returned to the Hales. If not, the judicial sale would stand and Regime would retain the house.
With the 10% benchmark in place, the court needed to determine what the sales price was. There are two methods for determining whether a bid price is so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience:
- The Debt Method. This assumes that the party that purchases the foreclosed property will become responsible for the mortgage and other associated debts. This method focuses on how much the foreclosure purchaser must pay before having a free-and-clear title to the property, so the value of the outstanding mortgage is added to the bid price.
In this case, Regime would have paid ($3,036 bid) + ($66,004 mortgage balance) = $69,040. This is 53.9% of the Property’s fair market value of $128,000.
- The Equity Method. This method focuses not on the debt the foreclosure purchaser is taking on, but the equity they would gain through the transaction. Instead of adding the outstanding mortgage balance to the bid, the balance is subtracted from the fair market value and compared to the bid.
In this case, Regime would stand to gain ($128,000 fair market value) – ($66,004 mortgage balance) = $61,996. The amount Regime paid, $3,036, is 4.9% of the equity it would stand to gain.
The majority of the time, the party that purchases the foreclosure does take on the obligations of the mortgage, because associated debts needs to be settled in order to have a free-and-clear title. For these situations, the Debt Method is appropriate.
But in the present case, Regime never took on the Hales’ mortgage and never took any positive steps to do so. As Justice Lockemy pointed out in his dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals decision, it didn’t make sense to credit Regime with having taken on the mortgage. Furthermore, the Hales continued to pay their mortgage, substantially reducing the outstanding debt on the house over time. Therefore, using the Equity Method in this case is, in the words of the SC Supreme Court decision, “the only logical option.”
Since 4.9% is clearly below the 10% threshold, the court concluded that the bid was, indeed, “so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court.” The court set aside the foreclosure sale.
Get Strategic Legal Advice
For guidance and legal help on business matters, estate planning, and commercial real estate in South Carolina, call Gem of the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant, SC. Gem and his associates are experienced problem solvers who are here to help you and your family. Call 843-284-1021 today to schedule a free consultation at the Mount Pleasant office.
