892 S.E.2d 297
S.C.2023Background
- Kitchen Planners contracted to procure and install Crystal Cabinets in the Friedmans' home; cabinets delivered May 20, 2015, but Friedmans refused final payment and refused acceptance.
- Kitchen Planners' sole member, Patricia Comose, accompanied an installer May 21; Comose was removed from the job in mid-June; Crystal Cabinets informed her by email on August 18 they had been removed.
- Kitchen Planners served a §29-5-90 statement to perfect a mechanic's lien on November 17, 2015; the 90-day lookback begins August 19, 2015.
- The only act within the 90-day period was a check Comose wrote on September 29, 2015 for $550.61 to pay for cabinet parts she previously ordered; Comose did not recall when the parts were ordered.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Friedmans dissolving the lien; the court of appeals affirmed using a "mere scintilla" standard; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kitchen Planners) | Defendant's Argument (Friedmans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper summary-judgment standard when motion asserts insufficiency of evidence | Court of appeals applied "mere scintilla"; Kitchen Planners argued evidence (e.g., the check) sufficed to create a triable issue | Friedmans argued Rule 56(c) requires a genuine issue shown by reasonable inference and mere scintilla is insufficient | The proper standard is Rule 56(c)'s "genuine issue of material fact" requiring reasonable inferences; the court overruled Hancock to the extent it endorsed a mere-scintilla rule |
| Whether Kitchen Planners timely served the §29-5-90 statement (i.e., perfected lien within 90 days) | The September 29 check and surrounding facts create an inference parts were ordered (and work/materials furnished) within 90 days, so the statement was timely | The check alone does not show when parts were ordered; Comose could not recall ordering date, so the evidence requires speculation and fails to create a genuine issue | The September 29 check is only a scintilla; it does not permit a reasonable inference that parts were ordered within 90 days, so no genuine issue exists and summary judgment for the Friedmans was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (rejected the mere‑scintilla standard for summary judgment; issue must be genuine)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue)
- Hancock v. Mid‑S. Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 673 S.E.2d 801 (2009) (had suggested mere‑scintilla sufficed in preponderance cases; overruled to the extent inconsistent with Rule 56(c))
- Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 410 S.E.2d 537 (1991) (summary‑judgment standard mirrors directed verdict; reasonable inference required)
- Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 744 S.E.2d 161 (2013) (stated that inferences must be reasonable and issues must be genuine)