Rhodes v. Security Finance Corp. of Landrum

233 S.E.2d 105, 268 S.C. 300, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 417
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 2, 1977
Docket20372
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 233 S.E.2d 105 (Rhodes v. Security Finance Corp. of Landrum) 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
Rhodes v. Security Finance Corp. of Landrum, 233 S.E.2d 105, 268 S.C. 300, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 417 (S.C. 1977).

Opinion

Lewis, Chief Justice:

This appeal is from an order of the lower court setting aside a verdict in favor of appellant (plaintiff) for actual and punitive damages and entering judgment for respondent (defendant).

An agent of respondent forged the name of appellant, as maker, to a note in the amount of $196.00 payable to respondent. The forgery was discovered when other agents of respondent attempted in a normal fashion, through private contact of appellant, to collect the note. The appellant, a person easily upset, suffered some emotional distress from the attempt of respondent to collect the note, but there was no loss of time from work or medical consultation because of the incident. Other than the fact that the note was a forgery, there were no unusual or aggravating circumstances surrounding the attempts to collect. When it was found that the note was a forgery, efforts to collect ceased.

*302 The action was subsequently brought by appellant to recover actual and punitive damages for emotional distress allegedly sustained by her from the attempt by respondent to collect on the forged note.

Upon the trial of the case, the lower court refused respondent’s timely motion for a directed verdict and submitted the issues to the jury, resulting in a verdict in appellant’s favor in the amount of $300.00 actual damages and $700.00 punitive damages. Respondent’s subsequent motion, however, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted and judgment entered for respondent (defendant). This appeal is from that order.

The order of the trial judge was based upon the conclusion, among others, that there was no evidence of any severe emotional distress. We agree.

We have recognized the rule that there is no liability for emotional distress without a showing that the distress inflicted is extreme or severe. Padgett v. Colonial Wholesale Distributing Company, 232 S. C. 593, 103 S. E. (2d) 265; Turner v. A B C Jalousie Company of North Carolina, 251 S. C. 92, 160 S. E. (2d) 528.

While there is testimony that appellant was emotionally upset from the attempt to collect the forged note, there is no showing that the attempts by respondent’s agents to collect were unreasonable or abusive, nor that appellant’s emotional upset was other than transient and trivial.

The trial judge properly held that there was no evidence to sustain recovery by appellant.

The judgment is affirmed.

Littlejohn, Ness, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hansson v. Scalise Builders of SC
650 S.E.2d 68 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2007)
Hansson v. Scalise Builders of South Carolina
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2005
Phillips v. United States
575 F. Supp. 1309 (D. South Carolina, 1983)
Ford v. Hutson
276 S.E.2d 776 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)
Hudson v. Zenith Engraving Co., Inc.
259 S.E.2d 812 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1979)
Whitten v. American Mutual Liability Insurance
468 F. Supp. 470 (D. South Carolina, 1977)
Bellamy v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
239 S.E.2d 73 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 S.E.2d 105, 268 S.C. 300, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-security-finance-corp-of-landrum-sc-1977.