KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC v. NO LIMIT, LLC

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC v. NO LIMIT, LLC

DecidedMay 18, 2022

Docket2019-001243

StatusUnpublished

This text of KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC v. NO LIMIT, LLC (KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC v. NO LIMIT, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC v. NO LIMIT, LLC, (S.C. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

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

KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC and SUPREMA, LLC, as successors in interest to 521, LLC, Respondents,

v.

NO LIMIT, LLC d/b/a No Limit Financial, LLC, and Erich Simpson, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001243

Appeal From Lancaster County Brian M. Gibbons, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-205 Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed May 18, 2022

AFFIRMED

John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.

Brian Wendell Tyson, of Law Office of Paul H. Bass, LLC, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: No Limit, LLC d/b/a No Limit Financial, LLC and Erich Simpson (collectively, Tenant) appeal the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Katkams Ventures, LLC and Suprema, LLC, successors in interest to 521, LLC (collectively, Landlord) and the damages award to Landlord. On appeal, Tenant argues it is entitled to have the future rental damages reduced to their present value.

The lease provided the damages stemming from a default included "an amount equal to the amount of all rents reserved under [the lease]," minus the amount of rent collected by reletting the premises. Because the damages were calculated as provided for by the lease agreement, we find the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC v. Gilleland-Prince, 412 S.C. 554, 562, 772 S.E.2d 882, 887 (Ct. App. 2015) ("A lease agreement is a contract, and an action to construe a contract is an action at law." (quoting Middleton v. Eubank, 388 S.C. 8, 14, 694 S.E.2d 31, 34 (Ct. App. 2010))); Fesmire v. Digh, 385 S.C. 296, 302, 683 S.E.2d 803, 807 (Ct. App. 2009) ("This Court reviews all questions of law de novo."); Crenshaw v. Erskine Coll., 432 S.C. 1, 24, 850 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2020) ("Actions on a contract must be based on the terms of the contract.").

AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

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

KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC and SUPREMA, LLC, as successors in interest to 521, LLC, Respondents,

v.

NO LIMIT, LLC d/b/a No Limit Financial, LLC, and Erich Simpson, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001243

Appeal From Lancaster County Brian M. Gibbons, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-205 Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed May 18, 2022

AFFIRMED

John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.

Brian Wendell Tyson, of Law Office of Paul H. Bass, LLC, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: No Limit, LLC d/b/a No Limit Financial, LLC and Erich Simpson (collectively, Tenant) appeal the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Katkams Ventures, LLC and Suprema, LLC, successors in interest to 521, LLC (collectively, Landlord) and the damages award to Landlord. On appeal, Tenant argues it is entitled to have the future rental damages reduced to their present value.

The lease provided the damages stemming from a default included "an amount equal to the amount of all rents reserved under [the lease]," minus the amount of rent collected by reletting the premises. Because the damages were calculated as provided for by the lease agreement, we find the circuit court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC v. Gilleland-Prince, 412 S.C. 554, 562, 772 S.E.2d 882, 887 (Ct. App. 2015) ("A lease agreement is a contract, and an action to construe a contract is an action at law." (quoting Middleton v. Eubank, 388 S.C. 8, 14, 694 S.E.2d 31, 34 (Ct. App. 2010))); Fesmire v. Digh, 385 S.C. 296, 302, 683 S.E.2d 803, 807 (Ct. App. 2009) ("This Court reviews all questions of law de novo."); Crenshaw v. Erskine Coll., 432 S.C. 1, 24, 850 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2020) ("Actions on a contract must be based on the terms of the contract.").

AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

KATKAMS VENTURES, LLC v. NO LIMIT, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katkams-ventures-llc-v-no-limit-llc-scctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack