Threlkeld v. Lyman Warehouse, LLC ( 2015 )

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
Harold P. Threlkeld d/b/a Harold P. Threlkeld, Attorney
at Law, Plaintiff,
v.
Lyman Warehouse, LLC, Lyman Pacific, LLC, Mills
Demolition, LLC, Susan C. Stanley, Peter M. Stanley and
Donald J. McWhirter, Defendants,
Of whom Lyman Warehouse, LLC is the Appellant,
and Donald J. McWhirter is the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001518
Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-428
Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed August 19, 2015
AFFIRMED
James Calhoun Pruitt, Jr., of Pruitt & Pruitt, of Anderson,
for Appellant.
Peter Demos Protopapas, of Rikard & Protopapas, LLC,
of Columbia; and John Christopher Pracht, V, of
Thomason & Pracht, LLP, of Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Lyman Warehouse, LLC (Lyman Warehouse), appeals the trial
court's ruling that Donald J. McWhirter is entitled to $100,000 held in escrow by
Lyman Warehouse's former counsel, Harold P. Threlkeld. Lyman Warehouse
argues the trial court erred in ruling (1) McWhirter has standing to assert a claim to
the money, (2) Lyman Warehouse released its claim to the money, (3) Lyman
Warehouse would be unjustly enriched if it received the money, and (4) the
contract required Lyman Warehouse to prove damages. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether McWhirter has standing to assert a claim to the money:
Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Charleston Cnty. Election Comm'n, 336 S.C. 174,
181, 519 S.E.2d 567, 571 (1999) ("To have standing, one must have a personal
stake in the subject matter of the lawsuit, i.e., one must be a real party in interest.
A real party in interest is one who has a real, material, or substantial interest in the
subject matter of the action, as opposed to one who has only a nominal or technical
interest in the action." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rule
22(a), SCRCP ("Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as
defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is
or may be exposed to double or multiple liability."); First Union Nat'l Bank of S.C.
v. FCVS Commc'ns, 321 S.C. 496, 499, 469 S.E.2d 613, 616 (Ct. App. 1996), rev'd
in part, 328 S.C. 290, 494 S.E.2d 429 (1997) ("[T]he primary purpose of
interpleader is to enable a neutral stakeholder, usually an insurance company or a
bank, to shield itself from liability for paying over the stake to the wrong party.
This is done by forcing all the claimants to litigate their claims in a single action
brought by the stakeholder. . . . There need not be actual competing claims against
the stakeholder for him to be entitled to interpleader, as long as there is the
potential for multiple claims." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. As to whether Lyman Warehouse released its claim to the money: Ecclesiastes
Prod. Ministries v. Outparcel Assocs., LLC, 374 S.C. 483, 497, 649 S.E.2d 494,
501 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A release is a contract and contract principles of law should
be used to determine what the parties intended."); id. ("The parties' intention must,
in the first instance, be derived from the language of the contract."); id. at 498, 649
S.E.2d at 502 ("In ascertaining intent, the court will strive to discover the situation
of the parties, along with their purposes at the time the contract was entered."); id.
at 499-500, 649 S.E.2d at 502 ("[A]ny ambiguity in a contract, doubt, or
uncertainty as to its meaning should be resolved against the party who prepared the
contract or is responsible for the verbiage." (quoting Myrtle Beach Lumber Co. v.
Willoughby, 276 S.C. 3, 8, 274 S.E.2d 423, 426 (1981))).
3. As to whether Lyman Warehouse would be unjustly enriched if it received the
money: JASDIP Properties SC, LLC v. Estate of Richardson, 395 S.C. 633, 639,
720 S.E.2d 485, 488 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In actions at equity, this court can find facts
in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence." (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich, 390 S.C. 609,
616-17, 703 S.E.2d 221, 225 (2010) (holding a party asserting a claim of unjust
enrichment must prove (1) it conferred a benefit upon the defendant, (2) the
defendant realized the benefit, and (3) the defendant retained the benefit under
conditions that make it unjust for him to do so).
4. As to whether the contract required Lyman Warehouse to prove damages:
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d
591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues if a
prior issue is dispositive).
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.