716 S.E.2d 316
S.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Buyers purchased the property at 2105 South Live Oak Drive from Sellers in 2004 after prior failed offers and mold concerns emerged.
- Prospective buyers prior to closing disclosed mold issues; the Sellers and agent Daniels had discussions but failed to provide a residential disclosure form.
- Daniels未 disclosed mold; contract language included 'as is' with dispute over whether mold disclosure language was added post-signature.
- Plaintiffs sued for failure to disclose mold and to provide written reports; trial occurred August 12–13, 2008, with a verdict for Buyers of $50,000 actual and $75,000 punitive damages.
- Judgment included a consent order from the South Carolina LLR alleging Daniels failed to disclose mold, admitted for impeachment and later used to support punitive-damages theory.
- Trial court granted Sellers a new trial absolute under Rule 59(d); Buyers appealed arguing no preserved objection to flawed jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new trial was properly granted | Buyers contend no preserved error supports new trial. | Sellers argue court may grant new trial sua sponte for any ground. | New trial reversed; failure to object precluded new-trial relief. |
| Application of the Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act to the transaction | Buyers alleged Act claims as basis for liability. | Sellers contend Act not applicable to a non-residential sale. | Act properly applied; house could be dwelling unit for purposes of Act. |
| Directed-verdict on liability and damages | Evidence supported duties and damages under the Act and common-law duties. | No duty beyond contract; no knowledge of mold; no actual damages proven. | Court properly denied directed verdict on liability and damages. |
| Admission of the LLR consent order under Rule 403/404, SCRE | Evidence showed Daniels’ knowledge and pattern of disclosure failures. | Order was prejudicial and improper under Rule 403/404. | Order admitted under Rule 403/404 as proof of knowledge and common scheme; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Railway Co. v. Coltex, Inc., 285 S.C. 213, 329 S.E.2d 736 (1985) (omitted jury-charge error cannot be cured by sua sponte new-trial order)
- State v. Dicapua, 383 S.C. 394, 680 S.E.2d 292 (2009) (whether trial court can sua sponte order new trial in criminal context; parallels civil rule)
- Collins Cadillac, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford, Inc., 276 S.C. 465, 279 S.E.2d 611 (1981) (failure to raise issues at trial precludes new-trial assertion)
- Belue v. City of Greenville, 226 S.C. 192, 84 S.E.2d 631 (1954) (preservation requirements for trial-error objections before appellate review)
- Munn v. Asseff, 226 S.C. 54, 83 S.E.2d 642 (1954) (challenge to jury charges requires objection to preserve issues)
- Rogers v. Scyphers, 251 S.C. 128, 161 S.E.2d 81 (1968) (development of seller duties in real estate transactions)
- Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407, 175 S.E.2d 792 (1970) (caveat emptor evolution toward implied duties in real estate sales)