D. R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Company

Supreme Court of South Carolina

D. R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Company

764 S.E.2d 701, 410 S.C. 319

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 1, 2014

DocketAppellate Case 2012-212895; 27450

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 764 S.E.2d 701 (D. R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D. R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Company, 764 S.E.2d 701, 410 S.C. 319 (S.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Co., 398 S.C. 528, 730 S.E.2d 340 (Ct.App.2012). We deny the petition as to petitioners’ questions A and B. We grant the petition as to petitioners’ question C, dispense with further briefing, vacate a portion of *320 the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion as modified.

The trial court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment as to slander of title based on the court’s finding that the filing of a lis pendens is entitled to absolute privilege. The Court of Appeals affirmed solely on this ground. However, the trial court also found that even if the lis pendens at issue was not entitled to absolute privilege, petitioners failed to establish any facts that would satisfy any of the prima facie elements of slander of title. This ruling was not challenged before the Court of Appeals and, therefore, is the law of the case. See Transp. Ins. Co. & Flagstar Corp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 889 S.C. 422, 699 S.E.2d 687 (2010) (“An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance.”). Accordingly, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeals to reach the novel issue of whether a lis pendens that is filed but does not comply with the time requirements of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-11-10 (2005), is entitled to absolute privilege when alleging slander of title. We therefore vacate the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion regarding petitioners’ slander of title claim and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the slander of title claim based on the law of the case finding set forth above.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND VACATED IN PART.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Co., 398 S.C. 528, 730 S.E.2d 340 (Ct.App.2012). We deny the petition as to petitioners’ questions A and B. We grant the petition as to petitioners’ question C, dispense with further briefing, vacate a portion of *320 the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion as modified.

The trial court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment as to slander of title based on the court’s finding that the filing of a lis pendens is entitled to absolute privilege. The Court of Appeals affirmed solely on this ground. However, the trial court also found that even if the lis pendens at issue was not entitled to absolute privilege, petitioners failed to establish any facts that would satisfy any of the prima facie elements of slander of title. This ruling was not challenged before the Court of Appeals and, therefore, is the law of the case. See Transp. Ins. Co. & Flagstar Corp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 889 S.C. 422, 699 S.E.2d 687 (2010) (“An unappealed ruling is the law of the case and requires affirmance.”). Accordingly, it was not necessary for the Court of Appeals to reach the novel issue of whether a lis pendens that is filed but does not comply with the time requirements of S.C.Code Ann. § 15-11-10 (2005), is entitled to absolute privilege when alleging slander of title. We therefore vacate the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion regarding petitioners’ slander of title claim and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the slander of title claim based on the law of the case finding set forth above.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND VACATED IN PART.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 S.E.2d 701, 410 S.C. 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-r-horton-inc-v-wescott-land-company-sc-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack