Bigford Enterprises v. D.C. Development

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

Bigford Enterprises, Inc., Bishop & Associates, Inc. d/b/a
"Bishop Brick and Construction," and McBride Building
Supplies and Hardware, Inc., Appellants,

v.

D.C. Development, Inc. n/k/a D.C. Development &
Construction, LLC By Way of Articles of Conversion
and David Cox, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001033

Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-330
Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed July 1, 2015

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Aimee Victoria-Ann Leary and Wendell Leon Hawkins,
both of Wendell L. Hawkins, PA, of Greer, for
Appellants.

William E. Booth, III, of Booth Law Firm, LLC, of West
Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Reversed and remanded pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities: Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp., 320 S.C. 188, 192, 463 S.E.2d
641, 643 (Ct. App. 1995) ("An action to pierce the corporate veil is one in
equity."); Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388, 400, 608 S.E.2d 849, 855 (2005) ("This
[c]ourt has held that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions in
equity.").1

REVERSED AND REMANDED.2

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We do not read Carolina Marine Handling, Inc. v. Lasch, 363 S.C. 169, 609
S.E.2d 548 (Ct. App. 2005), as creating a statute of limitations for actions to pierce
the corporate veil.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.