741 S.E.2d 565
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sapp sued Wheeler for rent damages under a guaranty after P.I. Leasing defaulted on a lease for a Surfside Beach, SC building (1994-2014 term).
- Wheeler, as president of P.I. Leasing, guaranteed performance; later assignments involved Resort Properties South, Inc., with Wheeler again guaranteeing the lease.
- Rent payments continued from 1994 to 2007, signed by Wheeler, Altman, or Faircloth; Wheeler did not revoke the guaranty in writing.
- PI Leasing dissolved in 2007; Sapp received payments from various entities through September 2007; several entities later paid under the lease.
- Sapp filed suit on September 30, 2008; trial occurred June 2010; verdict awarded Sapp $252,798 and Sapp’s fees of $48,929.
- Wheeler unsuccessfully moved for directed verdicts on future damages and statute of limitations; court denied; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether future damages were properly claimed and proven | Sapp showed potential future damages based on rent deficiency under the lease. | No evidence supported future damages; claims barred by the lease terms and lack of proof. | Court properly denied directed verdict on future damages. |
| Whether the guaranty claim accrued within the three-year statute of limitations | Action filed within a year after default; accrual occurred when payments ceased or obvious breach. | Accrual in 2001 when payments stopped; action untimely. | Court properly denied directed verdict on statute of limitations; action timely. |
| Whether the court should have given a jury instruction on the three-year statute of limitations | SO L should be charged; evidence supported accrual timing. | No necessity to instruct; accrual timing disputed but did not prejudice Wheeler. | Court did not err in not giving a separate statute of limitations charge. |
| Whether a new trial should be granted for inconsistency or excessiveness | None stated; defendant seeks new trial nisi remittitur due to inconsistency with PI Leasing verdict. | Verdict not irreconcilably inconsistent or excessive; unobjected timely under waiver rule. | Court properly denied motion for new trial. |
| Whether thirteenth juror relief was warranted | Verdict inconsistent and chaotic; trial court should grant absolute new trial. | Verdict not inconsistent or excessive; no basis for thirteenth juror relief. | Court properly denied thirteenth juror motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81 (1976) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts on appeal)
- Magnolia N. Prop. Owners’ Ass’n., Inc. v. Heritage Cmts., Inc., 397 S.C. 348 (Ct.App.2012) (proper evaluation of jury charges; abuse of discretion standard)
- Hennes v. Shaw, 397 S.C. 391 (Ct.App.2012) (abuse of discretion in jury instructions; review as a whole)
- Pittman v. Stevens, 364 S.C. 337 (Ct.App.2005) (prejudice requirement for failure to object to jury instruction)
- Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248 (Ct.App.2000) (new trial nisi discretionary; rationale for remittitur)
- Vinson v. Hartley, 324 S.C. 389 (Ct.App.1996) (thirteenth juror doctrine; authority to grant new trial)
- Cole v. Rant, 378 S.C. 398 (Ct.App.2008) (abuse of discretion standard in appellate review)