breach of fiduciary duty claim in South Carolina

2025Co., 399 S.C. at 335–37, 732 S.E.2d at 173 (2012) (holding a breach of fiduciary duty claim was duplicative of a legal malpractice claim and failed as a matter of law because the client's claim for breach of fiduciary duty arose out of the duty inherent in the attorney-client relationship and the same factual allegations). 3.

2025Co., 399 S.C. at 335–37, 732 S.E.2d at 173 (2012) (holding a breach of fiduciary duty claim was duplicative of a legal malpractice claim and failed as a matter of law because the client's claim for breach of fiduciary duty arose out of the duty inherent in the attorney-client relationship and the same factual allegations). 3.

2021In Moore, the appellant argued that the circuit court should not have submitted a breach of fiduciary duty claim to the jury because the respondent did not prove damages with reasonable certainty. 360 S.C. at 253 , 599 S.E.2d at 473 .

2021In Moore, the appellant argued that the circuit court should not have submitted a breach of fiduciary duty claim to the jury because the respondent did not prove damages with reasonable certainty. 360 S.C. at 253 , 599 S.E.2d at 473 .

2025See Woodson, 406 S.C. at 528 , 753 S.E.2d at 434 ("In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our appellate court applies the same standard as the [circuit] court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Buonaiuto, 440 S.C. at 150, 889 S.E.2d at 628 ("A [circuit] court may properly grant a motion for summary judgment when 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" (quoting Rule 56(c), SCRCP)).

2025See Woodson, 406 S.C. at 528 , 753 S.E.2d at 434 ("In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our appellate court applies the same standard as the [circuit] court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Buonaiuto, 440 S.C. at 150, 889 S.E.2d at 628 ("A [circuit] court may properly grant a motion for summary judgment when 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" (quoting Rule 56(c), SCRCP)).

2024Jur.2d Corporations § 2245)); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 311-12, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 647 (2020) (holding the majority members of a limited liability company lacked standing to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim in their individual capacities against the minority member because the majority members' loss would not be separate and distinct from the company's loss); Patterson v. Witter, 425 S.C. 213, 231 , 821 S.E.2d 677, 687 (2018) ("An action seeking to remedy a loss to the corporation is generally a derivative one." (quoting Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 49 , 557 S.E.2d 676, 684 (Ct. A

2024Jur.2d Corporations § 2245)); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 311-12, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 647 (2020) (holding the majority members of a limited liability company lacked standing to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim in their individual capacities against the minority member because the majority members' loss would not be separate and distinct from the company's loss); Patterson v. Witter, 425 S.C. 213, 231 , 821 S.E.2d 677, 687 (2018) ("An action seeking to remedy a loss to the corporation is generally a derivative one." (quoting Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 49 , 557 S.E.2d 676, 684 (Ct. A

2024Jur.2d Corporations § 2245)); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 311-12, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 647 (2020) (holding the majority members of a limited liability company lacked standing to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim in their individual capacities against the minority member because the majority members' loss would not be separate and distinct from the company's loss); Patterson v. Witter, 425 S.C. 213, 231 , 821 S.E.2d 677, 687 (2018) ("An action seeking to remedy a loss to the corporation is generally a derivative one." (quoting Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 49 , 557 S.E.2d 676, 684 (Ct. A

2024Jur.2d Corporations § 2245)); Wilson v. Gandis, 430 S.C. 282 , 311-12, 844 S.E.2d 631 , 647 (2020) (holding the majority members of a limited liability company lacked standing to bring a breach of fiduciary duty claim in their individual capacities against the minority member because the majority members' loss would not be separate and distinct from the company's loss); Patterson v. Witter, 425 S.C. 213, 231 , 821 S.E.2d 677, 687 (2018) ("An action seeking to remedy a loss to the corporation is generally a derivative one." (quoting Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 49 , 557 S.E.2d 676, 684 (Ct. A

2020See Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 361 , 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559 , 462 S.E.2d 860 (1995) (internal citations omitted) ("A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corporation.

2020See Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 361 , 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559 , 462 S.E.2d 860 (1995) (internal citations omitted) ("A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corporation.

2020See Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 361 , 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559 , 462 S.E.2d 860 (1995) (internal citations omitted) ("A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corporation.

2020See Hite v. Thomas & Howard Co., 305 S.C. 358, 361 , 409 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Huntley v. Young, 319 S.C. 559 , 462 S.E.2d 860 (1995) (internal citations omitted) ("A shareholder may maintain an individual action only if his loss is separate and distinct from that of the corporation.

2019Because a breach of fiduciary duty claim can be legal or equitable, see Verenes v. Alvanos , 387 S.C. 11 , 17, 690 S.E.2d 771 , 773 (2010) (stating "an action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is an action at law," but also that "a breach of fiduciary duty may sound in equity if the relief sought is equitable"), we look to the main purpose of the action to define our scope of review.

2019Because a breach of fiduciary duty claim can be legal or equitable, see Verenes v. Alvanos , 387 S.C. 11 , 17, 690 S.E.2d 771 , 773 (2010) (stating "an action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is an action at law," but also that "a breach of fiduciary duty may sound in equity if the relief sought is equitable"), we look to the main purpose of the action to define our scope of review.

2018See supra section II; Futch , 335 S.C. at 613 , 518 S.E.2d at 598 (providing that an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

2018See supra section II; Futch , 335 S.C. at 613 , 518 S.E.2d at 598 (providing that an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

2016See Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 671 , 582 S.E.2d 432, 444 (Ct. App. 2003) ("South Carolina holds the normal relationship between a bank and its customer is one of creditor-debtor and not fiduciary in nature."); id. at 670-71 , 582 S.E.2d at 444 ("[A] fiduciary relationship cannot be established by the unilateral action of one party.

2016See Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 671 , 582 S.E.2d 432, 444 (Ct. App. 2003) ("South Carolina holds the normal relationship between a bank and its customer is one of creditor-debtor and not fiduciary in nature."); id. at 670-71 , 582 S.E.2d at 444 ("[A] fiduciary relationship cannot be established by the unilateral action of one party.

2013See also Kahn v. Seaboard Corp., 625 A.2d 269, 271 (Del.Ch.1993) ("The wrong attempted to be alleged is the use of control over Seaboard to require it to enter into a contract that was detrimental to it and beneficial, indirectly, to the defendants.

2012“Our courts have long recognized that an attorney-client relationship is, by its very nature, a fiduciary relationship.” Spence v. Wingate, 395 S.C. 148, 158 , 716 S.E.2d 920, 926 (2011).

2012“Our courts have long recognized that an attorney-client relationship is, by its very nature, a fiduciary relationship.” Spence v. Wingate, 395 S.C. 148, 158 , 716 S.E.2d 920, 926 (2011).

2004Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994); Solomon v. City Realty Co. , 262 S.C. 198, 201 , 203 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974). [3] With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Hall appears to be arguing the same issues she argued in relation to her legal malpractice claim.

2004Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994); Solomon v. City Realty Co. , 262 S.C. 198, 201 , 203 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974). [3] With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Hall appears to be arguing the same issues she argued in relation to her legal malpractice claim.

2004Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994); Solomon v. City Realty Co. , 262 S.C. 198, 201 , 203 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974). [3] With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Hall appears to be arguing the same issues she argued in relation to her legal malpractice claim.

2004Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 363 , 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994); Solomon v. City Realty Co. , 262 S.C. 198, 201 , 203 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974). [3] With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Hall appears to be arguing the same issues she argued in relation to her legal malpractice claim.