On Wednesday, December 2nd, 2015, the Court of Appeals published one opinion Lyons v. Fidelity National. In this case, the Security Title Guarantee Corporation of Baltimore (“Security Title”) appealed the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Thomas P. Lyons and Desiree J. Lyons (collectively, the Lyons).
Security Title argues the circuit court erred in (1) finding the Lyons’ claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; (2) holding a county “no-build” resolution appeared in the public record and was available for title examination when the policy was issued; (3) holding a zoning resolution imposing a land restriction was a defect in title triggering coverage under the policy; (4) finding the Lyons did not fail to mitigate their damages; and (5) determining the date of loss.
The Court affirmed all of the circuit court’s holdings finding.
On November 25, 2015, the Court of Appeals published Zinn v. CFI Sales & Marketing. In this wage dispute action, Appellant/Respondent CFI Sales & Marketing, Ltd., d/b/a Westgate Resorts (“CFI”) appealed the circuit court’s post-trial ruling that the reserve and charge back components of CFI’s employment contracts with Respondents/Appellants (the Zinn Plaintiffs) violated the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.
On cross-appeal, the Zinn Plaintiffs argued the circuit court erred in (1) directing a verdict against Lynn Lanpher, Khalif Middleton, Sherry Singleton, Steven Thoni, and Michael Wills; (2) allowing the jury to consider terms of the employment contract that the circuit court subsequently determined to be illicit; (3) directing a verdict on their causes of action for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act; and (4) limiting the amount of attorney’s fees awarded.
The Court affirmed the directed verdicts. The Court reversed the circuit court’s directed verdict only as to Arrington’s claim for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, but affirmed the courts’ all other claims for breach of contract. The Court found Zinn Plaintiff’s remaining arguments unpreserved for appeal. For the award of attorney’s fees, the Court found no abuse of discretion but remanded the fee award and treble damages to Arrington so that the circuit court may articulate the bases for these awards. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.