Dermal Filler in John's Island, SC

JOHNS ISLAND — A national homebuilder has reached the end of its appeals in state courts fighting for what it believes is its right to cancel sales contracts for any reason it wants.

That includes putting a customized house back on the market to sell to another buyer at a higher price.

A March 11 ruling by the S.C. Supreme Court culminates the five-year lawsuit against Charlotte-based Eastwood Homes filed by contracted buyers of nine homes within the builder’s Swygert’s Landing subdivision on Johns Island.

The case centered on a dispute between the buyers and builder after Eastwood canceled each of their contracts on the same day in June 2021, some shortly before the sales were to close. In return the buyers were given a refund of their deposits and $100 for “damages.”

Ever since, the purchasers have stood their ground against the homebuilder for breach of contract, arguing the language regarding cancellation was vague, unfair and one-sided.

Two state courts have since agreed. The Supreme Court has declined to intervene in those decisions.

“Eastwood has spent five years trying to convince a court, any court, that it should be able to cancel contracts on families days before closing and walk away with no consequences,” attorney Ross Appel, co-counsel for the purchasers, told The Post and Courier. “This issue is now settled. These are real contracts with real families and Eastwood is going to be held accountable."

Plaintiffs Chris and LaShonda Jones Rayborn were one month away from closing when they got the email on June 4, 2021 — a day Chris Rayborn said is burned into his memory.

“At the time, we were living in a townhouse and had already purchased all the furniture and everything,” he said.

They waited out years in the crammed space before inevitably buying another house on Johns Island.

Lou Galvinos and his wife, Kimberly, were in a similar spot. Four days before the Eastwood email arrived, the plaintiffs had sold their Kentucky house and put their belongings in storage. Because they had to move to Charleston for jobs, they ended up living in a nearby apartment for three years with their items in storage hoping the case would have resolved sooner.

But they and the other buyers stuck it out, filing individual lawsuits against Eastwood that later became one big play against the homebuilder.

“Our lawyers said it would be a very hard sell, but we didn’t think it would be because we were the ones who were wronged,” Galvinos said. “We signed the contract with them, asking about price increases and stuff like that. They said the price is guaranteed once you sign the contract … (because) they buy all the products right then.”

In June 2025, the S.C. Court of Appeals upheld an initial 2024 ruling by Charleston County Master-in-Equity Mikell Scarborough that said the cancellation provision in Eastwood’s standard contract are “unconscionable” — or so unfair and unreasonable that they’re unenforceable.

The builder has long-maintained language in a specific contract clause gives the company unilateral authority to cancel agreements at any time prior to closing if a “bonafide dispute” arose. The clause also gave Eastwood the sole discretion to define what a “dispute” is.

The builder doubled-down in a 2024 hearing, so much so that Allen Nason, the company’s general counsel, said that cancellations are up to “the seller’s sole judgment, so I don’t really care what your opinion is. It is only my opinion that matters, period."

After Eastwood was twice denied, it then petitioned the state Supreme Court to take its case. But the high court ruled March 11 in a one-sentence order: “Based on the vote of the court, the petition … is denied.”

Eastwood’s lawyer, Ward Bradley, did not respond to a request for comment.

The buyers, who planned to move from all over the U.S. to Johns Island, entered into separate contracts with Eastwood from September 2020 to January 2021 to build houses to their specifications on lots they selected, according to the legal filing.

The prices ranged at the time from $534,000 to nearly $609,000.

For the last few years, the Swygert’s Landing homes have sat vacant and in various stages of construction — some completed while others have bare-bones foundations.

The lawsuit alleges Eastwood suddenly terminated their contracts citing a "legal error" in the paperwork, asking the buyers instead of waiting for a fix to negotiate a new contract for the same property at "current market value."

By that time, home prices in the area had risen to upwards of $800,000.

A majority of the homeowners have since found new living situations, but Appel said the Supreme Court ruling now brings the original, individual lawsuits against the builder back into play. The breach of contract complaints had stalled for years to focus on the combined lawsuit.

“We are excited to get through these appeals and get these cases in front of a jury,” said Michael T. Cooper of Apostolou Law Firm, who is co-counsel for the buyers. “Like the appellate courts have done, we believe the jury will ultimately side with these innocent home buyers and look forward to that day.”

The nine individual lawsuits are now “back on track,” Appel said. The main outcome at this point is damages, rather than following through on the sales.

“We have a lot of time and money tied up into this. As far as lost equity, we lived in an apartment for three years hoping we’d get it… so we weren’t paying a mortgage then,” Galvinos said. “If we would have gotten the house when we were supposed to, we’d have a sub-3-percent mortgage. So you’re talking about all of that and storage for three years.”

The builder said they’d most likely tear the homes down anyway, Raborn said. Glavinos added that Eastwood told them “they’d never sell us the house anyway.”

While the March 11 ruling is only applicable for the nine buyers of these specific homes, Eastwood contracts around the state could potentially be affected because the disputed language must be removed, Appel said.