James R. Brady v. Hilton Head Homes at Allenwood, 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

James R. Brady, Respondent,

v.

Hilton Head Homes at Allenwood, LLC, Village Square
Development Company, LLC, Lancaster Redevelopment
Corp., and Gary L. Grossman, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000222

Appeal From Beaufort County
Bentley Price, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-086
Submitted February 1, 2025 – Filed March 12, 2025

AFFIRMED

George Hamlin O'Kelley, III, of Buist Byars & Taylor,
LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants.

Jesse Sanchez, of The Law Office of Jesse Sanchez,
LLC, of Mount Pleasant; and Glynn Lindsey Capell and
Charles Whaley Thomson, both of Capell Thomson,
LLC, of Charleston, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Gary L. Grossman appeals a jury verdict in favor of James R.
Brady finding Grossman breached a contract with Brady and converted his
personal property and an order denying Grossman's motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Grossman argues the trial court erred when it
denied his motion for a directed verdict and motion for JNOV because (1)
contracts which assigned interests to Brady in Hilton Head Homes at Allenwood,
LLC and Village Square Development Company, LLC contained merger clauses
superseding a prior agreement between Brady and Grossman and (2) the prior
agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR.

Brady sued Grossman for breach of contract, conversion, and quantum meruit,
alleging Grossman breached a prior agreement between the two and exercised the
unauthorized assumption and right of ownership over money to which Brady had
an interest under the terms of the prior agreement. 1 As mentioned, the jury
returned verdicts in favor of Brady as to both causes of action and awarded Brady
$711,027 on each cause of action. Thereafter, the trial court entered a judgment
against Grossman in Brady's favor in the amount of $711,027. On appeal,
Grossman raised two issues, arguing the trial court erred when it denied his
motions for directed verdict and JNOV because it failed to hold that a prior
agreement was superseded by subsequent agreements and the prior agreement was
unenforceable under the statute of frauds. We hold Grossman's arguments, which
only challenge the trial court's failure to grant a directed verdict and JNOV as to
the breach of contract claim, are precluded from appellate review because
Grossman failed to challenge the jury's verdict in Brady's favor on the conversion
cause of action. See Anderson v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 322 S.C.
417, 420, 472 S.E.2d 253, 254 (1996) ("[W]hen a jury's general verdict is
supportable by more than one cause of action submitted to it, the appellate court
will affirm unless the appellant appeals all causes of action."); Gold Kist, Inc. v.
Citizens & S. Nat. Bank of S.C., 286 S.C. 272, 282, 333 S.E.2d 67, 73 (Ct. App.
1985) ("[W]here a jury returns a general verdict in a case involving two or more
issues or defenses and its verdict is supported as to at least one issue or defense, the
verdict will not be reversed."); Cole v. Raut, 378 S.C. 398, 407, 663 S.E.2d 30, 34
(2008) ("The application of the two-issue rule is separate and distinct from a
prejudicial error inquiry, and operates to uphold a jury verdict that is sustained by
the facts of the case."); id. ("The rule is consistent with the established notion that
the appellate courts in this State 'exercise every reasonable presumption in favor of

1
The trial court directed a verdict on quantum meruit after the jury returned its
verdict.
the validity of a general verdict.'" (quoting Gold Kist, Inc., 286 S.C. at 282, 333
S.E.2d at 73)).

AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.