WOMBLE

CARLYLE

SANDRIDGE &RICE

A LIMITED LIABILITY

PARTNERSHIP

5 Exchange Street Charleston, SC 2940 I

Mailing Address: Post Office Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 722-3400 Fax: (843) 723-7398 www. wcsr.com

July 16, 2014

Beaufort County Clerk of Court 102 Ribaut Road, Suite 208 Beaufort, SC 29902

JADE ALDERMAN PARALEGAL

Direct Dial: (843) 720-4649 E-mail: jaldennan@wcsr.com

Re: Susan Hoppe and Dale Hoppe, et al. v. Sterling Land Ventures I, LTD, et al. Beaufort County Case No.: 2014-CP-07-0136 WCSR File No.: 79632.0001.8

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed for filing, please find the original and one copy of our Answer of Humphreys and Partners Architects, LP in connection with the above-referenced case. Please file and return a court-certified copy to me in the self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter.

JVa Enclosure

Sincerely,

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE A -flmited Liability Partnership

~~~·~ JAD ALDERMAN

cc: All Counsel of Record (via email only)

CALIFORNIA I DELAWARE I GEORGIA I MARYLAND I NORTH CAROLINA I SOUTH CAROLINA I VIRGINIA I WASHINGTON D . C .

WCSR 32744840vl

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) )

COUNTY OF BEAUFORT )

SUSAN HOPPE and DALE HOPPE, on ) Behalf of themselves and all others similarly) Situated, )

) Plaintiffs, )

) v. )

) STERLING LAND VENTURES I, LTD ) a/k/a THE STERLING GROUP, ) STERLING DEVELOPMENT ) CORPORATION, CHURCHILL ) INVESTMENTS, LLC, STERLING ) SERVICES II, LLC a/k/a THE STERLING ) GROUP, STERLING GROUP, INC., ) PROFESSIONAL PLASTERING & ) STUCCO, INC. , DONNIE M. KING, ) FORUM CONSTRUCTION, INC., ) FORUM CONSTRUCTION GROUP, ) INC., WELLINGTON PROFESSIONAL ) STUCCO AND DRYWALL, INC. , ) WELLINGTON PROFESSIONAL ) STUCCO AND DRYWALL I, INC. , ) CONSTRUCTION OFFICES OF ) SANFORD, INC. , KEENAN HOPKINS ) SCHMIDT AND STOWELL ) CONTRACTORS, INC. d/b/a KHS&S ) CONTRACTORS, 5 STAR & ) ASSOCIATES, SUPERIOR FRAMING, ) HORIZON, INC., HUMPHREYS & ) PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP, and ERIC) B. JOHNSON, HUSSEY GAY BELL & ) De YOUNG, INC. , SOUTHERN ROOF ) AND WOOD CARE CORP, BOARD OF ) DIRECTORS FOR THE PRESERVE AT ) INDIGO RUN, and JOHN DOE ) DEFENDANTS 1 through 5, )

) Defendants. )

___________________________ )

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CASE NO.: 2014-CP-07-0136

ANSWER OF HUMPHREYS & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, LP

Answering the Complaint of Plaintiffs, Defendant Humphreys & Partners Architects, LP

("Humphreys") states as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. Humphreys denies each and every allegation of the Plaintiffs ' Complaint not

specifically admitted hereinafter.

ALLEGATIONS AS TO PARTIES, JURISDICTION & FACTS

2. Humphreys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 3 5 and therefore denies the same.

3. Answering Paragraph 36, Humphreys admits it is a limited partnership organized

and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Texas, and authorized to do business in South

Carolina, with an appointed agent for service of process in South Carolina. Humphreys denies

any allegations of Paragraph 36 inconsistent with the above admissions.

4. Answering Paragraph 37, Humphreys admits it served as the architect of record

for The Preserve at Indigo Run in 2000/2001 , when it was built as apartments. Humphreys

further admits it performed certain contract administration services during construction of those

apartments, with the scope of these services delineated by an express written contract.

Humphreys denies all allegations of Paragraph 3 7 inconsistent with the above admissions.

5. Humphreys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations of Paragraphs 38 through 44 and therefore denies the same.

6. Humphreys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations of Paragraphs 45 as to other parties and therefore denies the same. Humphreys

admits that from time to time it has conducted business in Beaufort County, South Carolina and

denies all allegations inconsistent with that admission.

2

7. Humphreys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations of Paragraph 46 and therefore denies the same.

8. Paragraph 47 sets forth a legal conclusion which Humphreys need neither admit

nor deny. To the extent Paragraph 47 purports to set forth factual allegations as to Humphreys, it

is denied.

9. Humphreys denies the allegations of Paragraphs 48 through 54 as to it.

10. Paragraph 55 sets forth a legal conclusion which Humphreys need neither admit

nor deny. To the extent Paragraph 55 purports to set forth allegations as to Humphreys, it is

denied.

11. Humphreys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations of Paragraphs 56 and 57 and therefore denies the same.

AS TO THE CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12. Answering paragraph 58, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein verbatim.

13. Humphreys lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations of Paragraphs 59 through 70 and therefore denies the same.

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Warranty of Habitability- Developers)

14. Answering paragraph 71 , Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

15. Paragraphs 72 through 75 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

3

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty- Developers)

16. Answering paragraph 76, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

17. Paragraphs 77 through 85 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/Gross Negligence- Developers)

18. Answering paragraph 86, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

19. Paragraphs 87 through 93 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Alter Ego/Amalgamation- Developers)

20. Answering paragraph 94, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

21. Paragraphs 95 through 103 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

4

AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/Gross Negligence- Contractors/Subcontractors)

22 . Answering paragraph 104, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

23. Paragraphs 105 through 112 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Implied Warranty of Workmanship- Contractors/Subcontractors)

24. Answering paragraph 113, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

25. Paragraphs 114 through 118 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Warranty- Humphreys)

26. Answering paragraph 119, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

27. Answering Paragraphs 120 and 121 , Humphreys references the express language

of its contract as the best evidence of its contents, and denies all allegations inconsistent with the

contract.

28. Humphreys denies the allegations of Paragraph 122 through 126.

5

AS TO THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/Gross Negligence- Humphreys)

29. Answering paragraph 127, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

30. Answering Paragraph 128 and 129, Humphreys references the express language

of its contract as the best evidence of its contents and Humphreys' obligations thereunder, and

denies all allegations inconsistent with the contract.

31. Humphreys denies the allegations of Paragraph 130 through 134.

AS TO THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/Gross Negligence- HGBD)

32. Answering paragraph 135, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

33. Paragraphs 136 through 138 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/Gross Negligence- Southern RooD

34. Answering paragraph 139, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

35. Paragraphs 140 through 147 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Warranty of Workmanship- Southern RooD

6

36. Answering paragraph 148, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

3 7. Paragraphs 149 through 153 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty -Board)

38. Answering paragraph 154, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

39. Paragraphs 155 through 165 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

AS TO THE THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence/Gross Negligence- Board)

40. Answering paragraph 166, Humphreys incorporates the above paragraphs of its

answer as if fully restated herein.

41. Paragraphs 167 through 170 state allegations against part(ies) other than

Humphreys. To the extent these Paragraphs set forth allegations against Humphreys, they are

denied.

42. Humphreys denies Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment or damages as set forth in

their prayer for relief.

7

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Although Humphreys has not yet had the opportunity to fully investigate or conduct

discovery regarding these claims, Humphreys believes there may be facts establishing the

availability of certain affirmative defenses. In order to preserve those defenses, Humphreys

alleges the following:

43. Plaintiffs fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and, therefore,

the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.

44. The statute of repose bars Plaintiffs' claims as to Humphreys.

45. The statute oflimitations bars Plaintiffs' claims as to Humphreys.

46. The Complaint against Humphreys is barred or limited by the contributing,

comparative, concurring, intervening, superseding or insulating fault and breach of persons or

entities other than Humphreys. Any fault or breach by Humphreys, the existence of which is

denied, was passive and secondary in light of the primary and active fault or breach of others.

47. Any damages sustained by Plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint were due to and

caused by the negligence of others or their agents, representatives, and subcontractors, which

acts combined, contributed and concurred with the alleged negligence on the part of Humphreys,

if any, which is expressly denied, and, therefore, the Plaintiffs are barred from recovery herein,

or, in the alternative, such recovery should be reduced proportionately, because of their

comparative fault.

48. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in tort for purely economic losses.

49. On information and belief, Plaintiffs lack sufficient legal privity with Humphreys

to permit imposition of liability in contract.

8

50. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages as required by law by failing to timely

correct construction defects in the building so as to avoid further damage to the building and in

other ways that may be revealed in discovery.

51. Plaintiffs' Complaint may be barred by the doctrine of spoliation of evidence to

the extent the subject residence was altered prior to giving Humphreys notice of potential

problems and a reasonable opportunity to inspect.

52. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this Complaint.

53. On information and belief, Plaintiffs are required to arbitrate these claims.

54. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover for repairs which will put them in a better

position than they would have been if all contracts/warranties had been properly performed and

fulfilled, and therefore, Plaintiffs' damages (which are denied) must be reduced by the amount

representing the value of all betterments made or to be made to the property.

55. Humphreys adopts the defenses set forth by other Defendants as if set forth fully

herein, to the extent such defenses do not conflict with the above averments.

56. Plaintiffs failed to give notice and opportunity to cure alleged defects pursuant to

S.C. Code Ann. §40-59-81 0 et. seq. , and this action should be dismissed or stayed until Plaintiffs

comply with the act.

RESERVATION AND NON-WAIVER

Humphreys reserves and does not waive any additional defenses or claims that it may

currently have or which may later be revealed through discovery or otherwise.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the claims of Plaintiffs and asserted its affirmative

defenses thereto, Defendant prays that the Complaint against it be dismissed, that it be awarded

9

their attorney 's fees and costs in defense of this action, and that it be awarded such other and

further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Charleston, South Carolina July ~, 2014

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP

ordes Ford IV (S.C. Bar No. 7 Dana W. Lang (S.C. Bar No. 775 5 Exchange Street P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402-0999 Telephone: (843) 720-4631 Fax: (843) 723-7398 cford(ci)wcsr.com dlang(ci)wcsr.com

Attorneys.for Humpreys & Partners Architects, LP

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on the .f)~ay of July 2014, I served a copy of the within Answer of Humphreys and Partners Architects, LP to Counsel of Record in the within entitled matter by sending a copy of the same via electronic mail and/or in an envelope with the correct postage prepaid addressed to:

Jesse A. Kirchner, Esquire Thurmond Kirchner Timbes & Yelverton, P.A. 15 Middle Atlantic Wharf, Suite I 0 I Charleston, SC 2940 I j k irchner(a{tktyla wfi rm .com

-and-

George E. Mullen, Esquire Frank E. Grimball , Esquire 70 Arrow Road Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 gmu ll en@mullenwyl ie.com fgrimba ll @mullenwyl ie .com

-and-

Glynn L. Capell , Esquire The Capell Law Firm, LLC P.O. Box 6628 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 gcapell@capelllaw.com

-and-

William C. Clark, Esquire Clark & Stevens, LLC P. 0. Box 7788 Hilton Head Island, SC 29938 bi ll@clarkandstevens.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Everett A. Kendall , II , Esquire Christy E. Mahon, Esquire SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, P.A. Post Office Box 12 129 Columbia, SC 2921 I eak@swblaw.com cem@swblaw.com Attorneys for Sterling Land Ventures, I, Ltd., alk/a The Sterling Group

II

Steve M. Pharr, Esquire Pharr Law, PLLC 8 West Third Street, Suite 600 Winston-Salem, NC 2710 I spharr@pharrlaw.com Attorneys for Keenan Hopkins Schmidt and Stowell Contractors, Inc. d/b/a KHS&S Contractors

Robert Trippett Boineau, Ill , Esquire McAngus Goudelock & CoUI·ie 1320 Main Street Meridian, I 0111 Floor Columbia, SC 2920 I tri ppett. bo i neau@m gc I a w .com Attorneys for Horizon, Inc.

Paul E. Sperry, Esquire Carlock Copeland & Stair 40 Ca lhoun Street, Suite 400 Charleston, SC 2940 I psperry@carlockcopeland .com Attomeysfor Eric B. Johnson, Hussey Gay Bell & Deyoung, Inc.

S. Ross Shealy, Esquire Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. 120 I Main Street, 22"d Floor Columbia, SC 29201-3226 rshea I y(a{h sb Ia wfi rm.com Attorneys for Professional Plastering & Stucco, Inc. and Donnie M. King

William W. Jones, Jr. , Esquire Weston J. Newton, Esquire 7 Plantation Park Drive, Suite 3 Bluffton, SC 29910 wjones@jsplaw .net wnewton@jsplaw.net Attomeys for Board of Directors for the Preserve at Indigo Run

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP

12