Court Opinion

ID: 9624241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:55:13.508353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:04.260739
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, Chief Judge
(concurring):
I agree with the result reached by the majority. However, I would simply adopt the Special Referee’s order and incorporate it as the opinion of this court as it is written.
The facts in this case clearly support the conclusion reached by the Referee that a forced buyout was the appropriate remedy afforded under the terms of the statute. See S.C.Code Ann. §§ 33-14-300 and 33-14-310 (1990). Taking our own view of the preponderance of the evidence, it is unnecessary to define “oppression” or “unfair prejudice” because there is ample evidence of both, giving these terms their plain and ordinary meaning. To define either based on foreign cases, treatises, and law review articles needlessly expands the law and may impact future cases with unforeseen and unintended consequences.
*607Furthermore, I would not go so far as to order an accounting beyond that which the Referee ordered.