Scott Arbet v. Riverstone Development Group, Inc.

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

Scott Arbet, Respondent,

v.

Riverstone Development Group, Inc., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000235

Appeal From Pickens County
Perry H. Gravely, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-032
Submitted December 1, 2021 – Filed February 2, 2022

AFFIRMED

Robert Mills Ariail, Jr., of Law Office of R. Mills Ariail,
Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant.

Townes Boyd Johnson, III, of Townes B. Johnson III,
LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this construction dispute, Riverstone Development Group,
Inc. (Riverstone) appeals the circuit court's order granting partial summary
judgment to Scott Arbet. We affirm.
"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 for general contracting . . . without a license issued in
accordance with this chapter." S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-30 (2011) (emphases
added). "A licensee is confined to the limitations of the licensee's license group
and license classifications or subclassifications as provided in this chapter." S.C.
Code Ann. § 40-11-270(A) (Supp. 2021) (emphasis added). "'License group'
means the financial limitations for bidding and performing general or mechanical
construction." S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-20(11) (2011) (emphasis added). Pursuant
to section 40-11-260(A)(4) at the time of the Arbet contract's formation, a general
contractor with a Group IV license was limited to bidding on and performing
construction contracts with a total cost of construction of $750,000 or below.1

"An entity which does not have a valid license as required by this chapter may not
bring an action either at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of a contract."
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-370(C) (2011) (emphases added). In C-Sculptures, LLC
v. Brown, our supreme court found the term "valid" to be clear and unambiguous
and held a contractor who was "underlicensed" to bid on and perform work on the
contract at issue did not possess a valid license pursuant to subsection
40-11-370(C). 403 S.C. 53, 57, 742 S.E2d 359, 361 (2013).

In the instant case, the construction contract provided the total construction sum
was "Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($750,000.00) with
final contract amount to be adjusted plus or minus 5% based upon client's final
selections and design changes to the Arbet Residence home plan to achieve this
budget." Similar to the contractor in C-Sculptures, we find Riverstone did not
possess the appropriate license qualifications to perform work on the project at the
time of the contract's formation. Riverstone's license group limited it to
construction projects with a maximum total cost of $750,000; the language of the
contract between the parties allowed for a greater total cost of construction.2 See
S.C. Code Ann. § 40-11-300(A) (2011) ("It is unlawful for an owner, a
construction manager, a prime contractor, or another entity with contracting or

1
"'Total cost of construction' means the actual cost incurred by the owner, all
contractors, subcontractors, and other parties for labor, material, equipment, profit,
and incidental expenses for the entire project. This does not include the cost of
design services unless those services are included in a construction contract." S.C.
Code Ann. § 40-11-20(23) (2011).
2
Adding five percent to the initial construction sum would increase the cost by
$37,500, raising the total cost of construction to $787,500.
hiring authority on a construction project to divide work into portions so as to
avoid the financial or other requirements of this chapter as it relates to license
classifications or subclassifications or license groups, or both. The total cost of
construction must be used to determine the appropriate license group for a
project."). Furthermore, we note section 40-11-300(B) required Riverstone to
terminate its involvement with the project following the first change order, which it
failed to do. See S.C. Code Ann. §40-11-300(B) (2011) ("An entity or individual
engaging in general or mechanical construction on a project without the required
license or certificate must immediately withdraw from the construction project and
may not act as a subcontractor on that construction project." (emphasis added)).
Therefore, we hold the circuit court properly found Riverstone could not bring an
action seeking to enforce the contract because it did not possess a valid license for
the project. See § 40-11-370(C) ("An entity which does not have a valid license as
required by this chapter may not bring an action either at law or in equity to
enforce the provisions of a contract." (emphasis added)); C-Sculptures, 403 S.C. at
56–57, 742 S.E.2d at 361 (holding a general contractor did not possess a valid
license to enforce the construction contract at issue when it possessed a Group II
license with a cost limitation of $100,000 and the cost of the project was
$800,000). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting partial summary
judgment to Arbet. See Penza v. Pendleton Station, LLC, 404 S.C. 198, 203, 743
S.E.2d 850, 852 (Ct. App. 2013) (providing that summary judgment is proper when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law).

AFFIRMED.3

WILLIAMS, A.C.J., MCDONALD, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.