Born Capital, LLC v. Caroline Beauregard

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

William E. Danielson, Plaintiff,

v.

Tyler Beauregard, Caroline Beauregard, and Born
Capital, LLC, Defendants,

Of which Born Capital, LLC, is the Appellant,

And

Of whom Caroline Beauregard is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000278

Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-157
Submitted March 16, 2023 – Filed April 19, 2023

AFFIRMED

R. Patrick Flynn, of Pope Flynn, LLC, of Charleston; and
Michael Wade Allen, Jr., of Buxton and Collie, LLC, of
Mount Pleasant, for Appellant.
Andrew F. Lindemann, of Lindemann Law Firm, P.A., of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from a cross-claim between a lease guarantor,
Born Capital, LLC, and a lessee, Caroline Beauregard. The master dismissed
Born's cross-claim for equitable indemnification finding the requisite special
relationship did not exist between Caroline and Born to justify its claim. We
affirm.

1. The master did not err in examining the relationship between Born and Caroline
as that of employer and employee's spouse. See Rhett v. Gray, 401 S.C. 478, 489,
736 S.E.2d 873, 884 (Ct. App. 2012) (noting that although equity cases have a
broad standard of review, "the appellant is not relieved of the burden of convincing
this court the trial court committed error in its findings"); id. at 498, 736 S.E.2d at
884 ("In order to sustain a claim for equitable indemnity, the existence of some
special relationship between the parties must be established." (quoting Toomer v.
Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 344 S.C. 486, 492, 544 S.E.2d 634, 637 (Ct. App. 2001)));
Rock Hill Tel. Co. v. Globe Commc'ns, 363 S.C. 385, 390 n.3, 611 S.E.2d 235, 237
n.3 (2005) (noting this special relationship "must be some kind of relationship
between the parties beyond the relationship established by virtue of one party
alleging that he was sued because of another's wrongdoing"); Rhett, 401 S.C. at
498, 736 S.E.2d at 884 ("[A] sufficient relationship exists [for indemnification]
when the at-fault party's negligence or breach of contract is directed at the non-
faulting party and the non-faulting party incurs attorney fees and costs in defending
itself against the other's conduct." (alterations in original) (quoting Town of
Winnsboro v. Wideman-Singleton, Inc., 307 S.C. 128, 132, 414 S.E.2d 118, 121
(1992))). Born maintains the proper lens through which to view the relationship is
that of lease guarantor and lessee and argues the ultimate question is whether the
harm to it from Caroline and her husband Tyler Beauregard's breach of the lease
was foreseeable. Caroline testified she never saw the lease, was not involved in
negotiating the lease, and did not discuss its terms with Tyler who was a Born
employee. The record demonstrates Tyler and Born proceeded without Caroline's
input in order to secure the property, to the point of signing her name on the lease
and having her signature witnessed after the fact.1 The master found Caroline was

1
Born is a company owned by the family of Derek Haworth, Tyler's former
colleague and friend. Derek participated in securing the lease for Tyler and his
family including signing as guarantor on behalf of the company and having the
signatures witnessed by a third party in the company.
a party to the lease pursuant to statute by virtue of occupying the property. 2
However, occupying the property does not establish a lease guarantor/lessee
relationship between Born and Caroline when she was not aware of the guaranty
contained in the lease and a guaranty is not a standard part of all lease agreements.
Caroline could not have foreseen that her act in abandoning the lease would result
in damages to an unknown lease guarantor. Therefore, under the facts of this case,
the master did not err in examining the relationship between Born and Caroline as
that of employer and employee's spouse, not lease guarantor/lessee.

2. With regard to Born's argument the master treated two equal lessees—Tyler and
Caroline—differently, the prior discussion explains the two were never equal in
relationships to Born. Caroline never knew about Born's role as guarantor of the
lease while Tyler clearly did. Moreover, Born's equitable indemnification claim
against Tyler ended in a default judgment with only the amount of damages to be
determined. Therefore, the master did not err in treating the two differently even
though both were considered lessees of the property.

AFFIRMED. 3

KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

2
The master determined Caroline was a party to the lease pursuant to section 27-
40-320(b) of the South Carolina Code (2007). It provides:

If [a] tenant does not sign and deliver a written rental
agreement which has been signed and delivered to the
tenant by the landlord, acceptance of possession and
payment of rent without reservation gives the rental
agreement the same effect as if it had been signed and
delivered by the tenant.
3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.