Briefings for Spring 2016


Save the date and plan to join the library staff for Briefings sessions on:

Monday, January 25th at noon or 5:15 to discuss Research & Resources for the Upper Level Writing paper;

Monday February 22nd, at noon or 5:15 to discuss Research & Resources for Jobs; and

Monday, March 28th, at noon or 5:15 to Jump Start Your Summer Clerkship!

Pizza is provided at all sessions.  Sign up on TWEN.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pizza & Crunch Time


During the exam period, the library will sponsor Crunch Time on Tuesday, December 1st, at noon and again at 5:00 p.mPizza and soda will be available in the Barrister.  Take a break from your exams and stop by to enjoy some pizza!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Articles Worth Reading

download-google-books-freeFor your reading pleasure and information needs, check out the following articles:

  1.  3 Things That Are Holding You Back From Making Partner
  2.  5 Key Issues As UnitedHealth Mulls ACA Exit
  3.  6 Legal Tech Security and Privacy Moves You Need to Know
  4.  Breyer, in Human Rights Lecture, Emphasizes the Rule of Law
  5.  In a First, Women Compose Majority of MDL Committee
  6. IRS Announces Fresh Crackdown on Inversion Deals
  7. Litigation Funder Juridica Pulls Back After Bad Bets
  8. Opinion: The Bitter Pill of Competition Within Large Law
  9. Refresh or Rebuild: Website Strategies for Big Law
  10. Report: Female and African-American Associates Losing Ground
  11. Sotomayor Says Congr3ess Should Not Tell Judges How to Review Cases
  12. The 3 Mistakes No Lawyer Can Come Back From.

Happy reading!

Posted in Law Practice Software, Library service | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

South Carolina Supreme Court Opinions

125px-SCSupreme_CourtSeal Today, the South Carolina Supreme Court published two opinions. In Beckman v. Sysco, the Court directed the Court of Appeals to depublish its opinion in Beckman v. Sysco Columbia, L.L.C., 408 S.C. 501, 759 S.E.2d 750 (Ct. App. 2014). The Court then dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

In State v. Johnson, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Today’s Opinions from the South Carolina Court of Appeals

Court of AppealsThe South Carolina Court of Appeals published two opinions: The SPUR v. Lalla and Hotel and Motel Holdings v. BJC Enterprises.

The SPUR v. Lalla involved Sunil and Sharon Lalla (collectively, the Lallas), co-owners of a unit in a horizontal property regime known as The SPUR at Williams Brice Stadium (The SPUR). This appeal followed the circuit court’s order allowing the SPUR to enforce a restrictive covenant prohibiting the Lallas from renting their unit to any student enrolled in a two or four year college. The Lallas appealed arguing that the restriction had no reasonable basis and discriminates against a specific class of individuals, and that the circuit court erred in failing to hold the covenant null and void.

The Court of Appeals examined the SPUR’s Master Dead, the Association’s by-laws, the pertinent statutes, and the circuit court’s order and found no error in the court’s ruling that when the Lallas became owners of a unit in The SPUR, they voluntarily and intentionally bound themselves by the restrictive covenants barring the rental of any unit to non-familial  college students. Therefore, the Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court.

In Hotel and Motel Holdings v. BJC Enterprises, BJC Enterprises, LLC  (“BJC”) and other joined parties (collectively, Appellants), appeal several orders from the circuit court arguing that the court erred in: (1) granting First Palmetto Savings Bank’s (“Palmetto”) motion for summary judgment as to Appellants’ third-party claims; (2) granting Hotel and Motel Holdings, LLC’s (“H&M”) motion for summary judgment as to Appellants’ counterclaims; (3) granting Jack Jones, Donald Godwin, and Bhupendra Patel’s (collectively, Individual Respondents) motion to dismiss; and (4) granting H&M’s motion to strike Appellants’ request for a jury trial on H&M’s cause of action for claim and delivery.

The basis of the dispute was Emerald Shores property that was purchased by BJC with a Loan given by Palmetto and a $1 million cash contribution by Coan, a managing member of BJC.  The Palmetto Note was secured by three mortgages: (1) Emerald Shores mortgage; (2) Rainbow Court mortgage; and a (3) Mortgage by Bellamy [another BJC managing member] on a rental duplex. Palmetto perfected its security interest by filing a financing statement on all furniture, fixtures and equipment used in operation of Emerald Shores. In addition, Coan posted a $500,000 certificate of deposit and Bellamy, her brother, and Coan executed personal guarantees for BJC’s obligation on the note.

The note was renewed yearly in 2007 and 2008. In 2008, BJC became late and eventually ceased making monthly payments. A balloon payment became due to which BJC did not satisfy.  There were negotiations made in an effort to renew the Note and bring it current by all managing members. Late in 2008, Bellamy’s uncle (“Uncle”) took over negotiations on the Note via his durable power of attorney for Bellamy. In 2009, Palmetto agreed to accept a small payment to temporarily defer on a foreclosure action and retained counsel to draft documents to sell the Note.

In June 2009, Palmetto  filed a commercial foreclosure action against the property. A few days later, Uncle and David Godwin filed articles of organization and created H&M. Palmetto entered into a loan sales agreement with H&M to assign, inter alia, the 2008 Note for $5 million and loan H&M money to finance the purchase.

A consent order was signed allowing H&M to substitute as plaintiff in the foreclosure action. H&M filed an amended complaint (against BJC) seeking foreclosure, claim and delivery, and the appointment of a receiver. Appellants filed an amended answer including a third-party complaint against Individual Respondents.

In a series of orders, the circuit court granted multiple motions that were appealed. This Court affirmed the findings of the circuit court: First to the dismissal of Appellant’s civil conspiracy claim against Individual Respondents because Appellants failed to plead with specificity any special damages to their third party action and conspiracy counterclaim.  Second the Court affirmed the granting of Palmetto’s summary judgment motion to Appellants’ third-party breach of contract finding Palmetto had a legal right to disclose the information about the 2008 Note to Uncle because there was no evidence that Palmetto had a contractual duty not to disclose information about the Note.   Third, the Court found the circuit court did not err in granting Palmetto’s summary judgment on Appellants’ third-party claims for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act because there record showed no evidence to support this claim.

Further, the Court found that the circuit court properly granted H&M’s motion for summary judgment on Appellant’s counterclaim for breach of contract because it is uncontested that Appellants failed to make the balloon payment on the 2008 Note  and the interest payment to Palmetto.

The Court found that Appellants argument that H&M was a holder in due course to the 2008 Note and the remaining counterclaims were not preserved for appeal. Additionally the Court affirmed the circuit court’s granting of H&M’s motion to strike request for a jury trial on H&M’s claim and delivery cause of action. The Court agreed with the circuit court’s decision that the action for claim and delivery is moot because an action in claim and deliver in an action of law  and there was no undisputed facts surrounding the allegation.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decisions of the circuit court.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

South Carolina Supreme Court Opinions


125px-SCSupreme_CourtSealThe South Carolina Supreme Court published two opinions. In Fore v. Griffco, the Court dismisses the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

In the Matter of Stephen Edward Carter, the Court disbars an attorney for violating Rules of Professional Conduct.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Opinions from the South Carolina Court of Appeals


Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals published three opinions: Reeves v. State, McAlhany v. Carter, and Bolin v. SCDC.

Reeves v. State was a criminal appeal. Reeves was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct (“CSC”) with a minor and lewd act upon a child. He appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) arguing that the PCR court erred in finding that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate and present testimony of a gynecological expert witness. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal finding that trial counsel was deficient because counsel should have discussed hiring a medical expert with Reeves to challenge the state’s medical evidence at trial. Additionally the Court found that Counsel’s ineffectiveness was prejudicial to Reeves.

In McAlhany v. Carter, McAlhany appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Respondents in this negligence action. The McAlhany argued that the trial court erred in finding the statute of limitations barred his property damage and personal injury claims, and in finding that there was no evidence to support his personal injury claim.

On the statute of limitations, the Court found that because McAlhany presented evidence that he did not discover mold in the  house until June 2008 or August 2009, the lawsuit initiation in April 2011 was within the three-year statute of limitations. Additionally, the Court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the personal injury claim because a question of fact existed as to when a reasonable person would have discovered the mold in the home.  Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In Bolin v. SCDC, the Court of Appeals reversed a decision by the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) upholding a determination of the South Carolina Department of Corrections that Bolin must serve 85 percent of his sentence before he is eligible for release, discharge or community supervision. Bolin appealed arguing that the 85 percent requirement of SC Code Section 24-13-150 does not apply to any of the offenses to which he pled guilty because they are not considered “no-parole offenses.”

Bolin plead guilty to possession of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to manufacture, and unlawful possession of a pistol. He was sentenced to five years on each drug offence and one year for the weapon offense.

After Bolin began serving his sentence, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) informed him that he was eligible for parole on his conspiracy conviction and intent to distribute conviction under SC Code Section 44-53-375(B). The DOC told him that if he was not granted parole, these offenses would be treated as no-parole offenses under SC Code Section 24-13-100 and 24-13-150. The latter requires an inmate convicted of a no-parole offense to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence before he is eligible for early release, discharge, or community supervision. Subsequently, Bolin filed two  grievances with the DOC  and was denied. The denial was upheld in his appeal to the ALC

The Court reversed the ALC’s decision holding that a second offense under section 44-53-375(B) is no longer a no-parole offense, thus the ALC erred in rejecting Bolin’s interpretation of the statutes in question. 




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment