Le Feather v. White

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
Le Feather, LLC and Son Van Le, Respondents,
v.
Tuyet L. White, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2016-002350
Appeal From Orangeburg County
James B. Jackson, Jr., Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-247
Submitted May 1, 2018 – Filed June 13, 2018
AFFIRMED
Russell Allen Blanchard, IV, of Williams & Williams, of
Orangeburg, for Appellant.
Lewis C. Lanier, of Lanier & Burroughs, LLC, of
Orangeburg, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Tuyet White appeals the master-in-equity's final order that
required her to vacate a premises owned by Le Feather, LLC (Feather) and pay
$1,000 monthly rent retroactive to a December 2013 order. On appeal, White
argues the master erred in (1) finding White was not in a partnership with either
Son Van Le or Feather; (2) finding White's dissociation from Feather was valid;
and (3) failing to order an accounting. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the master erred in finding White was not in a partnership with
either Le or Feather: Bluffton Towne Center, LLC v. Gilleland-Prince, 412 S.C.
554, 562-63, 772 S.E.2d 882, 887 (Ct. App. 2015) ("When reviewing a
master-in-equity's judgment made in an action at law, 'the appellate court will not
disturb the master's findings of fact unless the findings are found to be without
evidence reasonably supporting them.'" (quoting Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas,
Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 590, 658 S.E.2d 539, 542 (Ct. App. 2008))); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 33-41-210 (2006) ("A 'partnership' is an association of two or more persons to
carry on as co-owners a business for profit . . . ."); Moore v. Moore, 360 S.C. 241,
260, 599 S.E.2d 467, 477 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A partnership may be found to exist by
implication from the parties' conduct."); id. at 260-61, 599 S.E.2d at 477 ("To
determine whether a partnership exists, the following tests are used: (1) the sharing
of profits and losses; (2) community of interest in capital or property; and (3)
community of interest in control and management."); Stephens v. Stephens, 213
S.C. 525, 531, 50 S.E.2d 577, 579 (1948) ("[W]hen all of the conditions exist
which by law create a legal relationship, the effects flowing legally from such
relation follow whether the parties foresaw and intended them or not.").
2. As to whether the master erred in finding White's dissociation from Feather was
valid: S.C. Code Ann. § 33-44-601(1) (2006) ("A member is dissociated from a
limited liability company upon the occurrence of . . . the company's having notice
of the member's express will to withdraw upon the date of notice or on a later date
specified by the member."); S.C. Code Ann. § 33-44-603(1) (2006) ("Upon a
member's dissociation . . . the company must cause the dissociated member's
distributional interest to be purchased under Article 7."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 33-44-701(a)(1) (2006) ("A limited liability company shall purchase a
distributional interest of a . . . member . . . for its fair value determined as of the
date of the member's dissociation if the member's dissociation does not result in a
dissolution and winding up of the company's business . . . .").
3. As to whether the master erred in failing to order an accounting: Futch v.
McAllister Towing of Georgetown, 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598
(holding an appellate court need not address all issues on appeal when its decision
on one issue is dispositive).
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.