Ernest Middleton v. Georgetown County

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

Ernest F. Middleton, III, and Joyce J. Middleton, Michael
J. Farrar and Diana Farrar, Robert E. Hunt and Jeane M.
Sullivan, the Colony Homeowners Association, Inc., and
Keep It Green, Inc., Respondents,

v.

Georgetown County and Benjamin F. Goff, Sr., Trustee
of the Benjamin F. Goff 2004 Revocable Trust dated
June 18, 2004, Defendants,

Of which Benjamin F. Goff, Sr., Trustee of the Benjamin
F. Goff 2004 Revocable Trust dated June 18, 2004, is the
Appellant and Georgetown County is a Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000615

Appeal From Georgetown County
William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-259
Submitted June 1, 2024 – Filed July 17, 2024

AFFIRMED

Benjamin F. Goff, Sr., of Randolph, Massachusetts, pro
se.
H. Thomas Morgan, Jr., Rachel Elizabeth Lee, and
Sydney Jean Douglas, all of Smith Robinson Holler
DuBose Morgan, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent
Georgetown County.

Cynthia Ranck Person, of Keep it Green Advocacy, Inc.,
of Pawleys Island, for Respondents Diana Farrar,
Michael J. Farrar, Joyce J. Middleton, Ernest F.
Middleton, III, Robert E. Hunt, Jean M. Sullivan, Keep It
Green, Inc., and The Colony Homeowners Association,
Inc.

PER CURIAM: We affirm the circuit court's order granting Respondents'
motions to dismiss Benjamin F. Goff, Sr.'s counterclaims and to strike six of his
fifteen affirmative defenses.
1. We find Goff's counterclaims for declaratory judgment, civil conspiracy,
conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and injunctive
relief failed to assert a foundation sufficient to establish such causes of action and
merely set forth conclusory statements without support. Thus, we hold the circuit
court correctly dismissed each counterclaim. See Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390,
395, 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the dismissal of an action pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, the appellate court applies the same standard of review
as the trial court."); id. ("In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint based on a
failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the trial court must
base its ruling solely on allegations set forth in the complaint."); id. ("If the facts
alleged and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, would entitle the plaintiff to relief on any theory, then
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is improper."); Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 319 S.C. 69, 71, 459 S.E.2d 844, 845 (1995) ("To state a cause of action
under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a party must demonstrate a justiciable
controversy."); Paradis v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., 433 S.C. 562, 574, 861
S.E.2d 774, 780 (2021) (stating the elements to establish a cause of action for civil
conspiracy are "(1) the combination or agreement of two or more persons, (2) to
commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means, (3) together with the
commission of an overt act in furtherance of the agreement, and (4) damages
proximately resulting to the plaintiff"); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3231 ("The district courts of
the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the
States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States."); Thomas v. Salvation
Army S. Territory, 841 F.3d 632, 637 (4th Cir. 2016) ("The color of law
requirement 'excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how
discriminatory or wrongful.'" (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526
U.S. 40, 50 (1999))); AJG Holdings, LLC v. Dunn, 382 S.C. 43, 51, 674 S.E.2d
505, 508 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Generally, for a preliminary injunction to be granted,
the plaintiff must establish that: (1) he would suffer irreparable harm if the
injunction is not granted; (2) he will likely succeed on the merits of the litigation;
and (3) there is an inadequate remedy at law.").
2. We find Goff's affirmative defenses of civil conspiracy, conspiracy against
rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, misrepresentation, estoppel, and
unclean hands are irrelevant and improper defenses to any cause of action within
Respondents' complaint. Thus, we hold the circuit court correctly struck them
from Goff's answer. See Rule 12(f), SCRCP (stating a motion to strike a pleading
is proper for any "insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent[,]
or scandalous matter"); Steinke v. S.C. Dep't of Lab., Licensing & Regul., 336 S.C.
373, 398, 520 S.E.2d 142, 155 (1999) ("An appellate court will not reverse the
[circuit] court's decision to strike an insufficient or irrelevant allegation or defense
unless the [circuit] court abuses its discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion arises
where the [circuit] court was controlled by an error of law or where its order is
based on factual conclusions that are without evidentiary support."); Straight v.
Goss, 383 S.C. 180, 207, 678 S.E.2d 443, 458 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[T]he equitable
defense of unclean hands is available in a shareholder derivative action.").
AFFIRMED. 1

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

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