Gaddy Oil v. Rishmawi

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

Gaddy Oil, Inc., Plaintiff, Respondent,

v.

George Rishmawi, Sr. a/k/a Issa G. Rishmawi, George
Rishmawi, Jr., a/k/a George Issa Rishmawi, individually,
and both trading as G & S Transports, LLC, and Dollar
and More, LLC, Defendants, Appellants,

Issa George Rishmawi, Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

Andrew Gaddy and Gaddy Rentals, LLC, Third-Party
Defendants, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002026

Appeal From Williamsburg County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-308
Heard June 5, 2018 – Filed July 5, 2018

AFFIRMED

Mary Amanda Harrelson Shuler, of Whetstone Perkins &
Fulda, LLC, of Kingstree, for Appellants.
Kimberly Veronica Barr and Ronnie Alan Sabb, both of
Sabb Law Group, L.L.C., of Kingstree; and Adrian
Desmond Dukes, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie,
LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this civil case, George Rishmawi, Sr.; G&S Transports, LLC;
and Dollar and More, Inc. (collectively, Appellants) appeal multiple circuit court
orders. Specifically, Appellants argue the circuit court erred in granting motions
for directed verdict in favor of Gaddy Oil, Inc.; Andrew Gaddy; and Gaddy
Rentals, LLC (collectively, Respondents) on Appellants' claims for quantum
meruit, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. Appellants also appeal the
circuit court's order denying their motions for directed verdict. We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in granting Respondents' motions for
directed verdict: McKaughan v. Upstate Lung & Critical Care Specialists, P.C.,
421 S.C. 185, 189, 805 S.E.2d 212, 214 (Ct. App. 2017) ("When reviewing a trial
court's ruling on a directed verdict motion, this court will reverse if no evidence
supports the trial court's decision or the ruling is controlled by an error of law."
(quoting Burnett v. Family Kingdom, Inc., 387 S.C. 183, 188, 691 S.E.2d 170, 173
(Ct. App. 2010))); id. ("When reviewing the trial court's decision on a motion for
directed verdict, this court must employ the same standard as the trial court by
viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party." (quoting Burnett, 387 S.C. at 188, 691 S.E.2d at 173)); id.
("The trial court must deny a directed verdict motion where the evidence yields
more than one inference or its inference is in doubt." (quoting Burnett, 387 S.C. at
188, 691 S.E.2d at 173)); S.C. Code Ann. § 40-57-20 (Supp. 2017) ("It is unlawful
for an individual to act as a real estate broker . . . or provide services as such
without an active, valid license issued by the [Real Estate] [C]ommission.");
Roberts v. Gaskins, 327 S.C. 478, 490, 486 S.E.2d 771, 777 (Ct. App. 1997)
(finding a business broker, not licensed to sell real estate, was entitled to a
commission "contractually earned on the sale of the personal property of a
business, irrespective of the form of sale, even though the sale may include real
estate; provided, of course, no commission can be based either directly or
indirectly on the value of the real property involved"); S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-
20(9) (2011) ("'General contractor' means an entity which performs or supervises
or offers to perform or supervise general construction."); S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-
30 (2011) ("No entity or individual may practice as a contractor by performing or
offering to perform contracting work for which the total cost of construction is
greater than five thousand dollars . . . without a license issued in accordance with
this chapter."); W & N Constr. Co. v. Williams, 322 S.C. 448, 449-50, 472 S.E.2d
622, 623 (1996) (noting a person acting as a general contractor is prohibited from
bringing suit to enforce a contract entered into without a license).

2. As to whether the circuit court erred in failing to grant Appellants' motions
for directed verdict: McKaughan, 421 S.C. at 189, 805 S.E.2d at 214 ("When
reviewing a trial court's ruling on a directed verdict motion, this court will reverse
if no evidence supports the trial court's decision or the ruling is controlled by an
error of law." (quoting Burnett, 387 S.C. at 188, 691 S.E.2d at 173)); id. ("When
reviewing the trial court's decision on a motion for directed verdict, this court must
employ the same standard as the trial court by viewing the evidence and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (quoting
Burnett, 387 S.C. at 188, 691 S.E.2d at 173)); id. ("The trial court must deny a
directed verdict motion where the evidence yields more than one inference or its
inference is in doubt." (quoting Burnett, 387 S.C. at 188, 691 S.E.2d at 173)).

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.