Hoyt v. CollaborativeMed, LLC

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

Garry Hoyt, Appellant,

v.

CollaborativeMed, LLC and Richard L. Grounsell,
Defendants,

Of which Richard L. Grounsell is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000965

Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-268
Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed June 15, 2022

AFFIRMED

Mario Anthony Pacella and John R. Alphin, both of
Strom Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Richard L. Grounsell, pro se, of Greenville.

PER CURIAM: This case involves the efforts of Richard L. Grounsell, to
develop and market new insulin delivery technology, the Glucommander. Garry
Hoyt, a co-founder of Glucotec, one the entities involved in this effort, maintains
Grounsell violated a fiduciary duty to him by failing to give notice of a shareholder
meeting in which a stock exchange was consummated between Glucotec and
another entity owned by Grounsell, CollaborativeMed, LLC. Hoyt appeals the
circuit court's order finding he failed to establish damages to support his claim.1
We affirm.

1. As to Hoyt's contention the circuit court erred in finding Hoyt failed to prove
damages to support his breach of fiduciary duty claim, we agree that one circuit
judge cannot overrule another. See Enoree Baptist Church v. Fletcher, 287 S.C.
602, 604, 340 S.E.2d 546, 547 (1986) ("One [c]ircuit [c]ourt [j]udge does not have
the authority to set aside the order of another."); see also Belton v. State, 313 S.C.
549, 554, 443 S.E.2d 554, 557 (1994) (holding one judge did not have authority to
overrule another judge's order regarding jurisdiction as the question of jurisdiction
in the case was "purely a legal one"). However, the first circuit court's order did
not make a specific ruling as to damages. Even if it did, Judge Stilwell's order
indicates he examined the record and found Hoyt failed to establish damages. We
find no reversible error in the circuit court's conclusion. See Jordan v. Holt, 362
S.C. 201, 205, 608 S.E.2d 129, 131 (2005) ("[A] claim of breach of fiduciary duty
is an action at law and the [circuit court]'s findings will be upheld unless without
evidentiary support."); Piggy Park Enters., Inc. v. Schofield, 251 S.C. 385, 391,
162 S.E.2d 705, 708 (1968) ("It is, of course, true that the existence or amount of
damages cannot be left to conjecture, guess[,] or speculation.").

2. Regarding Hoyt's appeal of the interested director transaction claim, this issue
was finally determined by the Court of Appeals' previous opinion in this case. The
opinion noted Hoyt had not appealed the first circuit court's findings on the fairness
of the transaction, and therefore, those findings were the law of the case. Hoyt v.
CollaborativeMed, LLC, Op. No. 2018-UP-093 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 21, 2018).
That point was not, therefore, appropriate for Judge Stilwell to consider on remand
and likewise is not subject to review by this court. See Prince v. Beaufort Mem'l
Hosp., 392 S.C. 599, 605, 709 S.E.2d 122, 125 (Ct. App. 2011) ("When
we remand a case, the [circuit] court has only the jurisdiction and authority
mandated by this court."); see also id. at 606, S.E.2d at 126 ("The [circuit] court's
duty is to follow the instructions it received from the appellate court.").

1
Judge Young was the first circuit court judge in this matter but was retired at the
time of the Court of Appeals' decision remanding the case. Judge Stilwell
adjudicated the matter on remand, and this second order is the subject of this
appeal.
3. Finally, as to Judge Stilwell's findings regarding Dr. Bode's credibility, we
conclude Hoyt's arguments are without merit and resulted in no prejudice to Hoyt.
The first circuit court made no specific findings about Dr. Bode's credibility.
Judge Stilwell's order reflects he made his own findings based on a review of the
original trial's transcript. The parties had agreed to stand on the transcript of the
prior trial on remand. Therefore, any complaints about Judge Stilwell's reliance on
the prior record or the first circuit court's order are without merit. See Christy v.
Christy, 347 S.C. 503, 512, 556 S.E.2d 701, 705 (Ct. App. 2001), aff'd as
modified, 354 S.C. 203, 580 S.E.2d 444 (2003) (discussing the disability of a judge
and stating "if all parties consent, a successor judge may make findings of fact and
conclusions of law based on the trial transcript"). Furthermore, Judge Stilwell's
findings regarding Dr. Bode's credibility did not prejudice Hoyt as the court agreed
appropriate notice of the subject meetings was not provided. None of Dr. Bode's
testimony relating to possible damages, even if found credible, would salvage
Hoyt's claim.

AFFIRMED.2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

2
This case is decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.