You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Hilton Head Resort Co-Owners v. Resort Inv.

Citations: 429 S.E.2d 459; 311 S.C. 394; 1993 S.C. App. LEXIS 58Docket: 1991

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; April 12, 1993; South Carolina; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal by Coker Builders, Inc. and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company against a circuit court order that denied their motion to stay a circuit court action while arbitration was pending with Resort Investment Corporation (RDC). The dispute originated from a 1987 lawsuit filed by Hilton Head Resort against RDC, which prompted RDC to file a third-party complaint against Coker Builders for indemnification. Coker Builders sought arbitration; however, the existence of an arbitration agreement was contested, and the circuit court had issued a verbal order for arbitration that was not recorded in writing. The court refused to stay the circuit court proceedings, citing the absence of a formal arbitration clause in the contract between the parties. On appeal, the court affirmed the decision, emphasizing that a written order is necessary to compel arbitration and that without such documentation, the parties were not obligated to arbitrate. The dissenting opinion argued that the parties' conduct indicated an intent to arbitrate, suggesting that the oral order should bind the parties to arbitration. Ultimately, the case hinged on procedural issues surrounding the enforceability of verbal orders and the necessity of a written arbitration agreement.

Legal Issues Addressed

Effect of Oral Orders

Application: A judge can bind parties to an oral order that is recorded, and unless contradicted by a written order, the court is bound by it.

Reasoning: A judge can bind parties to an oral order that is recorded, and unless contradicted by a written order, the court is bound by it.

Enforceability of Verbal Orders

Application: The circuit court determined it was not bound by any verbal order due to the absence of a written record, referencing established case law that mandates written decrees for enforceability.

Reasoning: The circuit court determined it was not bound by any verbal order due to the absence of a written record, referencing established case law that mandates written decrees for enforceability.

Existence of Arbitration Agreement

Application: The court ruled that the contract between Coker Builders and RDC did not include an arbitration clause, and neither party had agreed to arbitrate any claims, a finding that was not appealed.

Reasoning: It ruled that the contract between Coker Builders and RDC did not include an arbitration clause, and neither party had agreed to arbitrate any claims, a finding that was not appealed.

Jurisdiction and Pending Arbitration

Application: Coker Builders and St. Paul argued the court erred by not staying the action, claiming the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of pending arbitration.

Reasoning: Coker Builders and St. Paul argued the court erred by not staying the action, claiming the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of pending arbitration.

Requirement for Written Orders

Application: The court emphasized that without a formal order to compel arbitration documented in the record, the parties were not obligated to arbitrate.

Reasoning: The court emphasized that without a formal order to compel arbitration documented in the record, the parties were not obligated to arbitrate.

Stay of Arbitration Proceedings

Application: RDC demonstrated to the circuit court that it had no agreement with Coker Builders and St. Paul, leading the court to properly stay the arbitration proceedings.

Reasoning: RDC demonstrated to the circuit court that it had no agreement with Coker Builders and St. Paul, leading the court to properly stay the arbitration proceedings.