Filed: Jul. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 29, 2015
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Long Grove Property Owners' Association (the POA) appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Long Grove at Seaside Farms, LLC; The Beach Company; and Gulfstream Construction Company, Inc. (collectively, Long Grove), as well as James, Harwick & Partners, Inc. n/k/a JHP Architecture/Urban Design, P.C
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Long Grove Property Owners' Association (the POA) appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Long Grove at Seaside Farms, LLC; The Beach Company; and Gulfstream Construction Company, Inc. (collectively, Long Grove), as well as James, Harwick & Partners, Inc. n/k/a JHP Architecture/Urban Design, P.C...
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Long Grove Property Owners' Association (the POA) appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Long Grove at Seaside Farms, LLC; The Beach Company; and Gulfstream Construction Company, Inc. (collectively, Long Grove), as well as James, Harwick & Partners, Inc. n/k/a JHP Architecture/Urban Design, P.C. (JHP) (all collectively, Respondents). The POA argues the trial court erred in (1) not finding the contract at issue is an exculpatory contract and void because it violates public policy; (2) allowing Long Grove and JHP to avoid non-delegable duties; (3) finding the POA is bound by a contract to which it was not a party; and (4) not finding the contract at issue is unconscionable and therefore void and unenforceable.
We affirm and adopt the trial court's order in full. See Byrd v. Livingston, 398 S.C. 237, 245, 727 S.E.2d 620, 624 (Ct. App. 2012) (adopting the trial court's order as to some issues); Grosshuesch v. Cramer, 367 S.C. 1, 6, 623 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2005) (adopting the reasoning set forth in the trial court's order as to some of the issues on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, SHORT and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
