Kesha Petty v. Cathy Biggerstaff

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

Kesha Petty, Appellant,

v.

Cathy Biggerstaff, individually and as owner of B&B
Amusement, Inc., and B&B Amusement, Inc.,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001304

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Shannon Metz Phillips, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-285
Submitted May 1, 2026 – Filed June 10, 2026

AFFIRMED

Kesha Petty, of Spartanburg, pro se.

Kenneth Jay Anthony, of Anthony Law, LLC, of
Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Kesha Petty appeals the master-in-equity's order which
determined (1) she was unjustly enriched by B&B Amusement, Inc. (B&B
Amusement) in the amount of $10,265.80, (2) B&B Amusement was unjustly
enriched by Petty in the amount of $3,200, (3) B&B Amusement was entitled to
restitution in the amount of $7,065.80, and (4) Cathy Biggerstaff was not owed in
her personal capacity and was not personally liable. On appeal, Petty argues the
master erred in finding (1) a contract or agreement existed between the parties, (2)
Petty was unjustly enriched for which B&B Amusement was entitled to restitution,
and (3) Biggerstaff was not personally liable. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR.

1. We hold this issue is not preserved for appellate review because Petty did not
argue before the master that specific terms agreed upon by the parties could not be
used in calculating the amount of restitution owed by either party and did not
contend this consideration amounted to finding a contract existed. See Wilder
Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that
an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to
and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate review.").

2. We hold the master did not err in finding both Petty and B&B Amusement were
unjustly enriched, and that Petty owed B&B Amusement $7,065.80 in restitution.
See Dema v. Tenet Physician Servs.-Hilton Head, Inc., 383 S.C. 115, 123, 678
S.E.2d 430, 434 (2009) ("Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine which permits
the recovery of that amount the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the
expense of the plaintiff."); Charleston Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Rahall, 427 S.C. 317,
322, 831 S.E.2d 122, 124 (Ct. App. 2019) ("In an action in equity, tried by a
master without a jury, an appellate court may view the evidence to determine facts
in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("This
broad scope of review does not require the appellate court to disregard the findings
of the master, who saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to
evaluate their credibility.").

We hold the master did not err in determining that Petty owed B&B Amusement
$10,265.80 in restitution. First, B&B Amusement conferred a non-gratuitous
benefit to Petty—the possession of the Property—from March to November of
2019. Although Petty contends she was only in possession of the Property until
August, Petty's answers to Respondents' requests to admit stated she was in
possession of the Property until November 2019. Second, Petty realized some
value from the benefit, as she utilized the Property to hold personal events, store
inventory, and set up her business. Third, it would have been inequitable for Petty
to retain the benefit without paying B&B Amusement for its value. See Dema, 383
S.C. at 123, 678 S.E.2d at 434 ("A party may be unjustly enriched when it has and
retains benefits or money which in justice and equity belong to another."); 56
Leinbach Invs., LLC v. Magnolia Paradigm, Inc., 411 S.C. 466, 479, 769 S.E.2d
242, 249 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating that to recover for a claim of unjust enrichment, a
party must show: "(1) he conferred a non-gratuitous benefit on the defendant; (2)
the defendant realized some value from the benefit; and (3) it would be inequitable
for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the plaintiff for its value"
(quoting Inglese v. Beal, 403 S.C. 290, 297, 742 S.E.2d 687, 691 (Ct. App.
2013))); Inglese, 403 S.C. at 298, 742 S.E.2d at 691 ("[N]ot just any benefit
conferred meets the first element. Rather, the benefit must be non-gratuitous,
either because it was conferred at [the defendant's] request or because the
circumstances were such that [the plaintiff] could reasonably rely on [the
defendant] for repayment.").

Next, Petty granted B&B Amusement a benefit by cleaning the Property and
repairing the damaged wall, B&B realized this benefit, and it would have been
inequitable for B&B to retain this benefit without paying Petty for its value. See
56 Leinbach Invs., LLC, 411 S.C. at 479, 769 S.E.2d at 249 (stating that to recover
for a claim of unjust enrichment, a party must show: "(1) he conferred a
non-gratuitous benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant realized some value
from the benefit; and (3) it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the
benefit without paying the plaintiff for its value" (quoting Inglese, 403 S.C. at 297,
742 S.E.2d at 691)). Biggerstaff testified the parties agreed that B&B Amusement
would compensate Petty for the cleaning of the Property by waiving the security
deposit and first month's rent, each totaling $800. Additionally, Biggerstaff agreed
that B&B Amusement intended to help with the labor for the repair of the wall, but
was unable to, and that $1,600 was fair credit to Petty based upon Petty's provided
receipts. Therefore, we hold the master did not err in determining B&B
Amusement owed Petty $3,200 in restitution. However, we hold Petty did not
confer a non-gratuitous benefit to B&B Amusement with the remaining work she
completed on the Property to "transform[] the building" to "further [her] []vision
for [her] business." Petty could not have reasonably relied upon B&B Amusement
for repayment for this work and B&B Amusement did not realize any value from
it. See id. (stating that to recover for a claim of unjust enrichment, a party must
show: "(1) he conferred a non-gratuitous benefit on the defendant; (2) the
defendant realized some value from the benefit; and (3) it would be inequitable for
the defendant to retain the benefit without paying the plaintiff for its value."
(quoting Inglese, 403 S.C. at 297, 742 S.E.2d at 691)); Inglese, 403 S.C. at 298,
742 S.E.2d at 691 ("[N]ot just any benefit conferred meets the first element.
Rather, the benefit must be non-gratuitous, either because it was conferred at [the
defendant's] request or because the circumstances were such that [the plaintiff]
could reasonably rely on [the defendant] for repayment."). In sum, because B&B
Amusement was entitled to $10,265.80 in restitution from Petty, and Petty was
entitled to $3,200 in restitution from B&B Amusement, the master did not err in
finding B&B Amusement was entitled to the difference—$7,065.80—in
restitution.

3. We hold this issue is moot because the master did not err in finding Petty was
not entitled to restitution; therefore, a finding that Biggerstaff was personally liable
would have no practical effect. See Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C.
344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973) ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if
rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy. This is true
when some event occurs making it impossible for [a] reviewing [c]ourt to grant
effectual relief."); Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001)
("An appellate court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an
adjudication where there remains no actual controversy.").

AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

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