McCaskill v. Roth

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

Baron L. McCaskill, III and Blane O. Ruschak, Respondents,

v.

Leslie Roth,
Southern Croth I, LLC, CBC Wood Products, Inc., Builders Source Direct, LLC,
The Due South Development Group, Inc., Due South Development, Inc., Gale
Contractor Services, S&T Roofing, LLC, Anything Electric, T&C
Construction, LLC, Johnston Roofing, Absolute Home Services, LLC, H.L.
Middleton Masonry, McGee Brothers, Inc., Sanchez Brothers Painting, Inc.,
Paver Creations, LLC, Conditioned Air, Agapito Hernandez, and Charleston
Marble and Granite, LLC, Defendants,

Of Whom Leslie
Roth is, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-550

Heard October 5, 2011 – Filed December 9,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Leslie Roth, pro se, for Appellant.

A. Bright Ariail, of Charleston, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Leslie
Roth appeals the trial court's distribution of funds held pursuant to an escrow
agreement.  He argues the trial court erred in holding he was not
entitled to the funds remaining in escrow. 

"When the language of a contract is clear,
explicit, and unambiguous, the language of the contract alone determines the
contract's force and effect, and the court must construe it according to its
plain, ordinary, and popular meaning."  Moser v. Gosnell, 334 S.C.
425, 430, 513 S.E.2d 123, 125 (Ct. App. 1999).  The escrow agreement clearly
provided that any excess funds left after payment for each punch list item were
to be returned to Baron L. McCaskill, III and Blane O. Ruschak (Purchasers). 
It also provided that any funds remaining in escrow after a year were to be
returned to Purchasers without the need for further action on the part of Purchasers,
Seller, or Escrow Agent.  The escrow agreement did not provide for any funds
remaining in escrow to be given to Roth.  It is irrelevant whether Purchasers
included items that were outside of the escrowed items or cost more than the
allowed amount because Roth was not entitled under the agreement to any excess
funds remaining after the punch list items were completed. 

Accordingly, the trial court's order is

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

[1] Purchasers argue the appeal is moot because Roth
failed to stay the trial court's order providing for the escrow agent to
release the funds to Purchasers' attorneys.  A case becomes moot when some
event occurs making it impossible for the reviewing court to grant effectual
relief and the judgment, if rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon
the existing controversy.  Linda Mc Co. v. Shore, 390 S.C. 543, 557, 703
S.E.2d 499, 506 (2010).  The relief Roth sought is distribution of the escrow
funds, not a continuation of the escrow account.  Accordingly, we find the case
is not moot.