Brandi Clarkson v. J. King Real Estate, LLC, 2023-001661

Brandi Clarkson sued J. King Real Estate, LLC and Jason Ernest King for alleged violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations.
The case originated in Lexington County and involved disputes over alleged deceptive or unfair business practices and interference with potential business contracts.
The circuit court granted directed verdicts in favor of the defendants (Respondents) on both of Clarkson's claims, finding insufficient evidence to go to the jury.
Post-verdict, Clarkson moved for a new trial, which the circuit court denied, noting her failure to provide evidence of an unfair or deceptive act.
Clarkson appealed, challenging the denial of her new trial motion and the directed verdicts.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of New Trial Motion	Circuit court relied on error of law	Decision was based on lack of evidence	Denial affirmed; based on lack of evidence
Directed Verdict on SCUTPA	Sufficient evidence of unfair act	No evidence of unfair/deceptive act	Affirmed; no evidence provided
Directed Verdict on Intentional Interference	King interfered with contracts	No evidence of any contract or improper means	Affirmed; insufficient evidence

Brinkley v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 386 S.C. 182 (Ct. App. 2009) (sets standard for new trial motion review)
Daisy Outdoor Advert. Co. v. Abbott, 322 S.C. 489 (1996) (explains public interest element in SCUTPA claims)
deBondt v. Carlton Motorcars, Inc., 342 S.C. 254 (Ct. App. 2000) (defines unfair trade practice under SCUTPA)
Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., 372 S.C. 470 (2007) (describes elements of intentional interference with prospective contractual relations)
United Educ. Distribs., LLC v. Educ. Testing Serv., 350 S.C. 7 (Ct. App. 2002) (intent requirement for interference claims)