Wright v. Cartledge

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

Issac Wright, Respondent,

v.

Stevie
Cartledge, Appellant.

Appeal From Allendale County

Walter H. Sanders, Jr., Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-470

Heard October 6, 2011 – Filed October 26,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Michael C. Tanner, of Bamberg, for Appellant.

James D. Mosteller, III, of Barnwell, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this bifurcated action for an
accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, and dissolution of a partnership, Appellant
Stevie Cartledge argues the special referee erred in finding a partnership
existed between the parties.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities:  Verenes v. Alvanos, 387 S.C. 11, 16, 690
S.E.2d 771, 773 (2010) ("Characterization of an action as equitable or
legal depends on the appellant's main purpose in bringing the action.")
(internal quotations omitted); Lewis v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 386, 709
S.E.2d 650, 654-55 (2011) (providing we will affirm the decision of the trial
court in an equity case unless its decision is controlled by some error of law
or the appellant satisfies this court that the preponderance of the evidence is
against the factual findings of the trial court); Historic Charleston
Holdings, LLC v. Mallon, 381 S.C. 417, 427, 673 S.E.2d 448, 453 (2009)
("An action for an accounting sounds in equity."); Tiger, Inc. v.
Fisher Agro, Inc., 301 S.C. 229, 237, 391 S.E.2d 538, 543 (1990) (holding
an action seeking dissolution of a partnership is one in equity); Bivens v.
Watkins, 313 S.C. 228, 230 n.3, 437 S.E.2d 132, 133 n.3 (Ct. App. 1993)
(providing an action for breach of fiduciary duty may also sound in equity if
the relief sought is equitable);S.C. Code Ann. § 33-41-210 (2006) (defining a "partnership"
as "an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a
business for profit . . . ."); Corley v. Ott, 326 S.C. 89, 92, 485
S.E.2d 97, 99 (1997) (holding a partnership may be found to exist by
implication from the conduct of the parties); Moore v. Moore, 360 S.C.
241, 260, 599 S.E.2d 467, 477 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding one of the most
important tests regarding the existence of a partnership is the intention of the
parties); id. (holding factors to consider when determining whether a
partnership exists include:  (1) the sharing of profits and losses; (2) the community
of interest in capital or property; and (3) the community of interest in
control and management).  We find no error of law and we find the factual
findings of the court to be supported by the record.[1] 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] Although the primary character of this action is
equitable, we alternatively find that under a legal standard of review our
conclusion would not change.  We make this alternative finding as we
acknowledge some jurisprudence relating solely to the question of a partnership
suggesting a legal standard of review.  See Dulany & Co. v.
Elford & Dargan, 22 S.C. 304, 308 (1885) (holding what constitutes a
partnership is a question of law);  Am. Type Founders Co. v. Greenwood
Printing Co., 88 S.C. 308, __, 70 S.E. 803, 804 (1911) (stating the circuit
court's factual finding on question of partnership conclusive on appeal); Beck
v. Clarkson, 300 S.C. 293, 301, 387 S.E.2d 681, 686 (Ct. App. 1989) (finding
sufficient evidence existed to submit the question of the existence of a
partnership to the jury); Hofer v. St. Clair, 298 S.C. 503, 508-09, 381
S.E.2d 736, 739 (1989) (utilizing a contract standard of review and stating
that lower court's factual findings on the existence of a partnership were supported
by the record).