Stoneledge At Lake Keowee Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Imk Dev. Co.

425 S.C. 276

821 S.E.2d 509

STONELEDGE AT LAKE KEOWEE OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; C. Dan Carson; Jeffrey J. Dauler; Joan W. Davenport; Michael Furnari; Donna Furnari; Jessy B. Grasso; Nancy E. Grasso; Robert P. Hayes ; Lucy H. Hayes; Ty Hix; Jennifer D. Hix; Paul W. Hund, III; Ruth E. Isaac ; Michael D. Plourde; Mary Lou Plourde; Carol C. Pope; Steven B. Taylor; Bette J. Taylor; and Robert White, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents,

v.IMK DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC; Keowee Townhouses, LLC; Ludwig Corporation, LLC; SDI Funding, LLC ; Medallion at Keowee, LLC; Integrys Keowee Development, LLC; Marick Home Builders, LLC; Bostic Brothers Construction, Inc.; Miller/Player & Associates; Bradford D. Seckinger; John Ludwig ; William Cox; Larry D. Lollis; Rick Thoennes; M Group Construction and Development; LLC; Mel Morris; Joe Bostic ; Jeff Bostic; Clear View Construction, LLC; Michael Franz ; MHC Contractors; Miguel Porras Choncoas; Builders First Source-Southeast Group; Mike Green; Southern Concrete Specialties; Carl Compton d/b/a Compton Enterprize a/k/a Compton Enterprises; Gunter Heating & Air; All Pro Heating; A/C & Refrigeration, LLC; Coleman Waterproofing ; Heyward Electrical Services, Inc. ; Tinsley Electrical, LLC; Hutch N Son Construction, Inc. ; Upstate Utilities, Inc.; Southern Basements; Carl Catoe Construction, Inc.; T.G. Construction, LLC; Delfino Construction ; Francisco Javier Zarate d/b/a Zarate Construction; Alejandro Avalos Cruz; Herberto Acros Hernandez; Martin Hernandez-Aviles; Francisco Villalobos Lopez; Ambrosio Martinez-Ramirez; Ester Moran Mentado; Socorro Castillo Montel; MJG Construction and Homebuilders, Inc. d/b/a MJG Construction; KMAC of the Carolinas, Inc. ; Eufacio Garcia; Everado Jarmamillio; Garcia Parra Insulation, Inc.; J&J Construction; Jose Nino; Jose Manuel Garcia ; Eason Construction, Inc.; Vincent Morales d/b/a Morales Masonry and Miller/Player & Associates, Defendants,Of Which Marick Home Builders, LLC and Rick Thoennes are the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000392

Opinion No. 5600

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard December 7, 2017

Filed October 10, 2018

Rehearing Denied December 13, 2018

Jason Michael Imhoff, Chad McQueen Graham, and Carl Reed Teague, all of The Ward Law Firm, PA, of Spartanburg, for Appellants.

Robert T. Lyles, Jr., of Lyles & Associates, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.

LOCKEMY, C.J.:

In this construction defect case, Marick Home Builders, LLC (Marick) and Rick Thoennes appeal several of the trial court's orders arguing the trial court erred by (1) failing to give certain jury charges; (2) failing to grant their directed verdict motions; (3) improperly limiting their closing argument; (4) amalgamating the interests of several defendants; (5) failing to require Respondents to elect a remedy; and (6) failing to properly set off settlements Respondents received prior to trial. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

In 2002, Bostic Brothers Construction, Inc. (Bostic) began construction as the general contractor on Stoneledge, a townhouse community on Lake Keowee. Bostic marketed the properties as "quality construction" and "maintenance free." Bostic stated, "The quality and attention to detail of the cedar and stacked-stone homes are just as breathtaking as the views." Bostic also noted "Your homeowner[']s association dues cover both maintenance of the grounds and the exterior of your home leaving you more time to enjoy the lake and surrounding attractions." Several of the units were sold in 2003, but the attempts to sellout were "erratic at best."

By late 2004, Bostic was having difficulties finishing other jobs and had to cease operations at Stoneledge. According to property owners at Stoneledge, when Bostic left in 2004, there were "a number of issues." Steven Taylor, a property owner at Stoneledge, testified "[i]t was like a ghost town." He stated property owners were concerned about whether electricity bills were being paid, whether the septic system would work properly, and who was responsible for keeping the common areas landscaped. Taylor testified Bostic had completed the exteriors of the remaining units, but had not completed the interiors when it abandoned the project.

In 2005, IMK Development Company purchased the property from Bostic, and Marick Home Builders, LLC took over the building responsibilities for Stoneledge. Marick's site superintendent, Nathan Hornaday, testified he walked through the unsold units and noted existing damage and what needed to be fixed. According to Hornaday, the exterior of the units, including the roof, porches, decks, and siding were installed in all of the homes and only two or three units needed doors or windows installed.

Hornaday testified that when he arrived on the Stoneledge site, he observed leaks around the porches and decks. Taylor testified he too noticed leaks on his porch and deck. Additionally, Hornaday stated he observed water damage inside the unfinished units, not associated with the porches. He believed that the water damage was the result of broken or missing windows and doors. Hornaday alerted Marick, and one of its principals, Rick Thoennes, about the issues. Marick pulled permits for the unfinished units to complete construction. Marick also hired Coleman Waterproofing to rectify the leaks on the decks and porches by applying a waterproof coating to the concrete. According to Marick, the waterproofing appeared to rectify the issue.

In 2005, IMK created a homeowners association (HOA) for Stoneledge. At that time, the HOA Board was comprised of IMK representatives, including Thoennes. The HOA conducted regular business, but the homeowners did not have much interaction with the Board. The HOA performed maintenance to the units, but progress was sometimes slow. The IMK/Marick representatives of the Board turned over the HOA to the homeowners in late 2008.

In the spring of 2009, the homeowner-controlled Board began receiving complaints of leaks on the decks and porches. Some homeowners also noticed water running through the crawl-space of their homes during heavy rains. The HOA completed destructive testing on the porches and decks and found significant damage. The HOA also found hidden rot caused by water intrusion to structural columns, and homeowners began reporting interior damage caused by water infiltration from the roof.

In February 2010, the HOA filed an action against Bostic, IMK, Marick, and other development entities, subcontractors and individuals. The HOA settled with some defendants, but went to trial against Bostic, IMK, Marick and the original IMK/Marick board members, alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty of workmanlike service, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

At trial, the HOA requested the jury return a verdict for $6,309,197 for the full amount required to bring the damaged buildings up to the quality at which they were marketed. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the HOA for a total of $5,000,000: $3,000,000 on the negligence cause of action against Marick and Bostic, $1,000,000 on the breach of implied warranty cause of action against Marick and Bostic, and $1,000,000 for the breach of implied warranty cause of action against Marick. Following post-trial proceedings to allocate fault and setoff settlement funds, the trial court entered revised judgments. This appeal followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS

A. JURY CHARGES

"An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial court committed an abuse of discretion." Stephens v. CSX Transp., Inc. , 415 S.C. 182, 197, 781 S.E.2d 534, 542 (2015) (quoting Cole v. Raut , 378 S.C. 398, 404, 663 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2008) ). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or is not supported by the evidence." Id. (quoting Cole , 378 S.C. at 404, 663 S.E.2d at 33 ).

"A trial court must charge the current and correct law." Id . (quoting In re Estate of Pallister , 363 S.C. 437, 451, 611 S.E.2d 250, 258 (2005) ). "Ordinarily, a trial judge has a duty to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law applicable to the issues and evidence." Id . (quoting Ross v. Paddy , 340 S.C. 428, 437, 532 S.E.2d 612, 617 (Ct. App. 2000) ). "However, jury instructions should be confined to the issues made by the pleadings and supported by the evidence." Id ."A trial court's refusal to give a properly requested charge is reversible error only when the requesting party can demonstrate prejudice from the refusal." Id . (quoting Pittman v. Stevens , 364 S.C. 337, 340, 613 S.E.2d 378, 380 (2005) ).

"When an appellate court reviews an alleged error in a jury charge, it ‘must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial.’ " Id . (quoting Keaton ex rel. Foster v. Greenville Hosp. Sys. , 334 S.C. 488, 497, 514 S.E.2d 570, 575 (1999) ). "If, as a whole, the charges are reasonably free from error, isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute reversible error." Id. at 198, 781 S.E.2d at 542 (quoting Keaton , 334 S.C. at 497, 514 S.E.2d at 575 ). "This holistic approach to jury instructions is linked to the principle of appellate procedure that ‘[a]n error not shown to be prejudicial does not constitute grounds for reversal.’ " Id . (quoting Ardis v. Sessions , 383 S.C. 528, 532, 682 S.E.2d 249, 250 (2009) ).

If the record does not contain any proposed jury charges, and it does not reflect that Appellant proffered any proposed jury charges, the issue is not preserved. Commerce Ctr. of Greenville, Inc. v. W. Powers McElveen & Assocs. , 347 S.C. 545, 556, 556 S.E.2d 718, 724 (Ct. App. 2001).

Marick argues the trial court erred by (1) not charging the jury that Marick could be held liable only for work it performed, (2) charging the jury on breach of implied warranty of habitability, even though that cause...