Bigford Enterprises v. D.C. Development

Opinion

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

Bigford Enterprises, Inc., Bishop & Associates, Inc. d/b/a "Bishop Brick and Construction," and McBride Building Supplies and Hardware, Inc., Appellants,

v.

D.C. Development, Inc. n/k/a D.C. Development & Construction, LLC By Way of Articles of Conversion and David Cox, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001033

Appeal From Horry County

Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-330 Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed July 1, 2015

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Aimee Victoria-Ann Leary and Wendell Leon Hawkins, both of Wendell L. Hawkins, PA, of Greer, for Appellants.

William E. Booth, III, of Booth Law Firm, LLC, of West Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp., 320 S.C. 188, 192, 463 S.E.2d 641, 643 (Ct. App. 1995) ("An action to pierce the corporate veil is one in equity."); Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388, 400, 608 S.E.2d 849, 855 (2005) ("This [c]ourt has held that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions in equity.").1

REVERSED AND REMANDED.2

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 We do not read Carolina Marine Handling, Inc. v. Lasch, 363 S.C. 169, 609 S.E.2d 548 (Ct. App. 2005), as creating a statute of limitations for actions to pierce the corporate veil. 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.