Beverly v. Bucksville Farms ( 2014 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Randy A. Beverly, LLC and Donald Godwin, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Bucksville Farms, Inc., Defendant & Third Party
Plaintiff,
v.
Randy A. Beverly and Donald Godwin, Third Party
Defendants & Fourth Party Plaintiffs,
v.
Benjamin J. Creel, individually and as surviving director
of Bucksville Farms, Inc., Fourth Party Defendant,
Of whom Bucksville Farms, Inc., Benjamin J. Creel,
individually and as surviving Director of Bucksville
Farms, Inc. are the Appellants,
and
Randy A. Beverly, LLC, Donald Godwin, LLC, Randy
A. Beverly and Donald Godwin are the Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2012-212984
Appeal From Horry County
Ralph P. Stroman, Special Referee
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-028
Heard November 12, 2013 – Filed January 22, 2014
AFFIRMED
James P. Stevens, Jr., of Stevens Law Firm, PC, of Loris,
and James B. Richardson, Jr., of Columbia, for
Appellants.
John Dwight Hudson, of Hudson Law Offices, of Myrtle
Beach, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: In this breach of contract action involving the sale of real estate,
Bucksville Farms, Inc. and Benjamin Creel, individually and as surviving director
of Bucksville Farms, Inc., (collectively, Appellants), appeal from the Special
Referee's order finding the purchase agreement ("Agreement") precluded its action
for actual damages for breach of contract by the purchasers, Randy Beverly, LLC,
Randy Beverly, Donald Goodwin, LLC, and Donald Goodwin (collectively,
Respondents). Appellants argue the Special Referee erred in holding the only
remedies available were forfeiture of the earnest money and specific performance.
We find the Special Referee correctly determined the Agreement was
unambiguous. See Ecclesiastes Prod. Ministries v. Outparcel Assocs., LLC, 374
S.C. 483, 498, 649 S.E.2d 494, 501 (Ct. App. 2007) ("To discover the intention of
a contract, the court must first look to its language – if the language is perfectly
plain and capable of legal construction, it alone determines the document's force
and effect."). We further find the Special Referee correctly determined that had
there been any ambiguity, it would have been resolved against Appellants, who
drafted the Agreement. See Davis v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., 394 S.C. 116, 129 n.4,
713 S.E.2d 799, 805 n.4 (Ct. App. 2011) (holding any ambiguity in an agreement
must be construed against the drafter). Appellants assert that under Bannon v.
Knauss, 282 S.C. 589, 592, 320 S.E.2d 470, 472 (Ct. App. 1984), the rule in South
Carolina is that remedies specified in a real estate sales agreement are not the
exclusive remedies of the seller unless the agreement clearly limits the seller to
those remedies. We find Bannon is not applicable to this case because the
Agreement's language is clear as to the exclusive remedies available to the seller,
which were forfeiture of the earnest money and specific performance. See Ellis v.
Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 248, 449 S.E.2d 487, 488 (noting a court's duty is to enforce
an unambiguous contract according to its terms "regardless of its wisdom or folly,
apparent unreasonableness, or the parties' failure to guard their rights carefully").
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.