Evolve Softworks, LLC v. Anthony Burkett

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

Evolve Softworks, LLC, Appellant,

v.

Anthony Burkett, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001068

Appeal From York County
Daniel D. Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-251
Heard May 11, 2023 – Filed June 21, 2023

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Richardson Plowden &
Robinson, PA, of Columbia; William S.F. Freeman, of
Freeman & Freeman, LLC, of Greenville; and Francesca
Macchiaverna, of Hunter Maclean Exley & Dunn, PC, of
Savannah, Georgia, all for Appellant.

Kenneth Ray Raynor, of Raynor Law Firm, PLLC, of
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Evolve Softworks, LLC ("Evolve") appeals the circuit court's
dismissal of its action for breach of a guaranty agreement against Anthony
Burkett. On appeal, Evolve argues (1) the complaint's allegations indicate the
statute of limitations had not expired; (2) the complaint's allegations indicate the
guaranty was supported by sufficient consideration; and (3) the circuit court erred
in refusing to allow Evolve the opportunity to amend its complaint. We reverse
and remand.

We hold the circuit court erred in failing to allow Evolve to amend its complaint.
See Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395, 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("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)[, SCRCP] is improper."); Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County,
426 S.C. 175, 179, 826 S.E.2d 585, 587 (2019) ("When a trial court finds a
complaint fails 'to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action' under Rule
12(b)(6), the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint
pursuant to Rule 15(a)[, SCRCP] before filing the final order of dismissal."); id. at
189, 826 S.E.2d at 592 ("Under Rules 12(b)(6) and 15(a), the circuit court may not
dismiss a claim with prejudice unless the plaintiff is given a meaningful chance to
amend the complaint, and after considering the amended pleading, the court is
certain there is no set of facts upon which relief can be granted."); id. at 182, 826
S.E.2d at 589 ("A court's decision to deny a motion to amend should not be based
on the court's perception of the merits of an amended complaint."). Accordingly,
we reverse the circuit court's dismissal of Evolve's action and remand to the circuit
court for further proceedings. 1

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

1
Because this issue is dispositive, we need not reach Evolve's remaining issues.
See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518
S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not review remaining issues
when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).