MO-017 - Pavilion Development v. Nexsen Pruet
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Supreme Court Pavilion Development Corp. & Larry McNair, Appellants, v. Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Respondent, v. DC & Sons, LLC, Counterclaim Defendant. Appellate Case No. 2016-001632 Appeal from Charleston County Thomas Russo, Circuit Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2018-MO-017 Heard March 27, 2018 – Filed April 11, 2018 AFFIRMED Andrew K. Epting, Jr., Jaan G. Rannik, Michelle N. Endemann and George J. Kefalos, all of Charleston, for Appellants. Elizabeth Van Doren Gray, Tina Marie Cundari and Benjamin R. Gooding, all of Sowell Gray Robinson Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: This case involved the purported assignment of a legal malpractice claim between adversaries in litigation in which the alleged malpractice arose. This Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of Appellants' case, holding the assignment was void as against public policy. See Pavilion Development Corp. v. Nexsen Pruet, Mem. Op. No. 2015-MO-047 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Aug. 12, 2015); see also Skipper v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 413 S.C. 33, 38, 775 S.E.2d 37, 39 (2015). Following this Court's opinion, Appellants filed an untimely petition for rehearing, seeking an order to allow time to amend their complaint in the trial court. We denied the petition as untimely and directed Appellants to seek any further relief from the trial court. Thereafter, Appellants made a motion to amend their complaint or substitute parties before the trial court. The trial court denied the motion in light of this Court affirming its decision to grant summary judgment for Respondent, as modified to be a dismissal without prejudice but without instruction that a reasonable time be allowed to amend the complaint. Having carefully considered the applicable law, the record, and the parties' arguments, we find Appellants' arguments to be manifestly without merit and affirm the denial of Appellants' motion pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. AFFIRMED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
