Court Opinion

ID: 9585247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:16.346246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:52.344958
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge:
James M. Treadwell, Jr., a Georgia resident, appeals an order denying his motion to quash service of a summons and complaint. The respondent R. Preston Lackey, a South Carolina resident, served the summons and complaint upon Tread-well pursuant to South Carolina’s “long-arm statute.” See S. C. Code of Laws § 36-2-803 (1976). The principal question on appeal is whether traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice prevent the courts of South Carolina from exercis•ing in personam, jurisdiction over Treadwell in this instance.
Lackey seeks to recover retirement benefits from Treadwell under a written partnership contract made in South Carolina and signed by Lackey, Treadwell, and three others on November 30,1975. The agreement established a partnership known as Lackey, Ferrell, Harris & Treadwell, CPAs, for the purpose of rendering accounting services in Georgia and South Carolina.
Under the agreement, each partner became entitled to participate ratably in the profits, property, and other assets of the partnership; however, each partner also assumed a ratable responsibility for the debts and other obligations of the partnership. One obligation involved the payment of retirement benefits for 120 months to any partner who retired. The agreement expressly provided that, in the event of dissolution of the partnership, sums due as a result of the retirement of a partner would be assumed ratably by each partner and each partner would pay his ratable share of each installment as it became due.
*83Lackey retired on December 1,1975, the partnership’s effective date, and for two years received monthly retirement benefits from the partnership. The partnership dissolved on January 1, 1978. All partners except Treadwell pay Lackey each month their respective ratable portions of the retirement benefits due him under the partnership contract. Tread-well refuses to pay his ratable share.
We agree with the Circuit Court. Treadwell’s acts brought him within the scope of South Carolina’s “long-arm statute.” Section 36-2-803 of the Code provides in part as follows:
(1) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent as to a cause of ■ action arising from the person’s
(a) transacting any business in this State;
(b) contracting to supply services or things in the State;
(g) entry into a contract to be performed in whole or in part by either party in this State;....
The record clearly manifests that Treadwell entered into a contract to be performed partly in this state when he signed the partnership agreement. Indeed, the partnership of which he was a member transacted business and supplied accounting services in South Carolina for over two years. The partnership also contracted to provide retirement benefits to retiring partners; and for more than two years, it provided these benefits to Lackey in South Carolina. The partnership’s activities fall squarely within the provisions of the “long-arm statute.”
Treadwell argues that he lacks sufficient minimum contacts within South Carolina upon which to base in personam jurisdiction. We affirm the Circuit Court in that regard, however, and hold that the maintenance by Lackey in South Carolina of his action against Treadwell “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95, 102 (1945). The execution by Treadwell within South Carolina of the partnership *84contract out of which Lackey’s cause of action arose constitutes a substantial connection with this state and a realistic basis for the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over Treadwell. Compania De Astral, S. A. v. Boston Metals Co., 205 Md. 237, 107 A. (2d) 357, 108 A. (2d) 372, 49 A.L.R. (2d) 646 (1954), certiorari denied, 348 U. S. 943, 75 S. Ct. 365,99 L. Ed. 738 (1955); Annot., 20 A.L.R. (3d) 1201 at 1216-21 (1968); 20 Am. Jur. (2d) Courts § 146 at 494 (1965).
Other actions by Treadwell make his connection with South Carolina even more substantial. Treadwell participated in a partnership that for two years or more enjoyed the privilege of conducting accounting activities in South Carolina and received the benefit and protection of South Carolina’s laws. Treadwell also ratably assumed, upon the dissolution of the partnership and pursuant to the partnership contract, the partnership’s obligation to pay retirement benefits to Lackey in South Carolina. See First-Citizens Bank and Trust Co. v. McDaniel, 18 N. C. App. 644, 197 S. E. (2d) 556 (1973) (where promise by nonresident to pay debt owed by another to North Carolina resident held to constitute sufficient minimal contact upon which North Carolina could assert personal jurisdiction over defendant); cf. Cozi Investments v. Schneider, 272 S. C. 354, 252 S. E. (2d) 116 (1979) (sufficient minimum contacts held to exist where North Carolina residents contracted to guarantee performance of a lease involving real estate in South Carolina, rent payments were to be made in South Carolina, and guarantors visited and inspected leased premises monthly).
We also uphold the Circuit Court’s finding that to require Treadwell to defend himself in South Carolina would further the interest of justice and would be
neither unfair to Treadwell nor cause him undue hardship. In fact, Treadwell does not contend otherwise. Although he includes an exception that raises the issue of unfairness or hardship, Treadwell nowhere argues it in his brief. An exception not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned. State v. Vaughn, 268 S. C. 119,232 S. E. (2d) 328 (1977). In any case, the findings of the Circuit Court are binding upon this court where, as here, no showing was made that they either lack evidentiary support or are manifestly influenced or controlled *85by an error of law. Nucor Corp. v. Fanevil Construction, Inc., 264 S. C. 458, 215 S. E. (2d) 634 (1975).
Affirmed.
Cureton, J., concurs.
Gardner, J., dissents.