Barbara L. Sarb v. Julie W. Phillips
2023-001713
| S.C. Ct. App. | Aug 27, 2025Background
- Dr. Barbara Sarb (Buyer) purchased a home from Julie and Joseph Phillips (Sellers) in Florence, South Carolina.
- The Purchase Agreement provided Buyer certain inspection rights and required Sellers to provide a Residential Property Condition Disclosure Statement under South Carolina law.
- Prior to closing, Buyer personally inspected the home multiple times, hired professional inspectors (CL-100 and HouseMaster), and requested repairs based on their reports.
- After closing, Buyer experienced repeated flooding, sewage issues, and discovered a cockroach infestation; evidence showed Sellers did not disclose known water and sewage problems.
- Buyer sued for violations of the disclosure statute, fraud, and contract-related claims; Sellers counterclaimed for "Breach of Contract—Failure to Inspect."
- The jury found for Buyer on her statutory claim and for Sellers on their counterclaim (but awarded $1,000 in damages). Both sides sought attorney’s fees and appealed aspects of the judgment and fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of Property Disclosure Act | Sellers did not disclose known defects | Buyer was on notice via inspections | Affirmed: Jury could find Sellers liable under Act |
| Breach of Contract—Failure to Inspect | No duty to adequately inspect | Buyer had duty to conduct adequate inspection | Reversed: No such contractual duty by Buyer |
| Sellers’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees | Only applies if Buyer breached contract | Buyer breached by inadequate inspection | Reversed: No breach, so no fees for Sellers |
| Buyer’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs | Buyer was prevailing party under Act | Not prevailing; fees should be reduced | Affirmed right to fees, remanded amount for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9 (S.C. 2004) (sets standard for reviewing JNOV and directed verdict)
- Steinke v. S.C. Dep't of Lab., Licensing & Regul., 336 S.C. 373 (S.C. 1999) (JNOV and inference standards)
- Blumberg v. Nealco, Inc., 310 S.C. 492 (S.C. 1993) (attorneys’ fees require statutory or contractual basis)
- Seckinger v. Vessel Excalibur, 326 S.C. 382 (Ct. App. 1997) (defines “prevailing party” for fee awards)
- Horton v. Jasper Cnty. Sch. Dist., 423 S.C. 325 (S.C. 2018) (trial courts must make specific findings to support fee awards)