Chandler v. Bradford

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Greg M. Chandler, Appellant,

v.

Arnoldean Bradford and Joyce P.
Bradford and Ben L. Trotter, d/b/a/ Pickens Pest Control, Defendants,

of Whom Arnoldean Bradford and
Joyce P. Bradford are, Respondents.

Appeal From Pickens County

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-162

Submitted February 4, 2009 – Filed April 6, 2009

AFFIRMED

Nathaniel A. Earle and Larry N. Briggs, both of Greenville,
for Appellant.

Thomas Bailey Smith, of Easley, for Respondents.

PER
CURIAM: In this action stemming from the purchase of real property,
Chandler asserts the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims
for breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act,
fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and non-compliance with the
Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act.  We affirm the trial court
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to breach of
contract:  Ward v. West Oil Co., 379 S.C. 225, 239, 665 S.E.2d 618, 625
(Ct. App. 2008) ("If a contract's language is plain, unambiguous, and
capable of only one reasonable interpretation, no construction is required and its
language determines the instrument's force and effect."); Lindsay v.
Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 340, 491 S.E.2d 583, 589 (Ct. App. 1997) ("The
court must enforce an unambiguous contract according to its terms regardless of
its wisdom or folly, apparent unreasonableness, or the parties' failure to
guard their rights carefully."); First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of
South Carolina v. Dangerfield, 307 S.C. 260, 267, 414 S.E.2d 590, 594 (Ct.
App. 1992) ("There is no breach of an implied covenant of good faith where
a party to a contract has done what the provisions of the contract expressly
gave him the right to do."); RoTec Servs., Inc. v. Encompass Servs.,
Inc., 359 S.C. 467, 473, 597 S.E.2d 881, 884 (Ct. App. 2004) (concluding
that an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not an independent
cause of action separate from the claim for breach of contract).

2.  As to fraud and negligent
misrepresentation:  Baughman v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101,
116, 410 S.E.2d 537, 545-46 (1991) ("[T]he plain
language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate
time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.") (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)); Schnellmann v. Roettger, 373 S.C. 379,
382, 645 S.E.2d 239, 241 (2007) ("The failure to prove any element of
fraud or misrepresentation is fatal to the claim."); McLaughlin v. Williams,
379 S.C. 451, 458, 665 S.E.2d 667, 671 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[I]f the
undisputed evidence clearly shows the party asserting reliance has knowledge of
the truth of the matter, there is no genuine issue of material fact"); id. 379 S.C. at 459, 665 S.E.2d at 671 (holding buyer failed to establish the
necessary element of reliance for claims of fraud and negligent
misrepresentation where buyer had information of moisture damage prior to the
sale).

3.  As to the
Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act:  Even though the Act generally requires
a disclosure statement absent an applicable exception, the trial court
nonetheless did not err in concluding, as a matter of law, that proximately
caused damages arising from the failure to provide the disclosure statement were
lacking in light of the "as is" agreement between the parties.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 27-50-110 (2007) ("Nothing in this article is intended to
prevent the parties to a contract of sale from entering into agreements of any
kind or nature with respect to the physical condition of the property to be
sold including, but not limited to, agreements for the sale of real property 'as
is.'"); S.C. Code Ann. § 27-50-40(C) (2007) ("The rights of the
parties to a real estate contract in connection with conditions of the property
of which the owner has no actual or constructive knowledge are not affected by
this article."); S.C. Code Ann. § 27-50-50(B) (2007) (providing in part
that failure to provide the disclosure form required by this article to the
purchaser does not void the agreement or create a defect in title); S.C. Code
Ann. § 27-50-65 (2007) ("An owner who knowingly violates or fails to
perform any duty prescribed by any provision of this article . . . is liable
for actual damages proximately caused to the purchaser and court costs.");
S.C. Code Ann. § 27-50-80 (2007) ("This article does not limit the
obligation of the purchaser to inspect the physical condition of the property
and improvements that are the subject of a contract covered by this article.").

Accordingly,
the order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HEARN, C.J.,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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