Eastwood Homes has been the subject of several lawsuits in South Carolina, most notably a 2020 class action alleging defective roofing on roughly 400 homes near Charleston, a 2024 ruling striking down a cancellation clause in the builder’s standard purchase contract, and a 2026 construction defect case involving a Greenville-area subdivision. The cases target two distinct problems: the quality of the homes Eastwood builds and the fairness of the contracts it asks buyers to sign.
The 400-Home Roofing Class Action
In December 2020, thirty named plaintiffs sued on behalf of approximately 388 homeowners in Berkeley County, alleging that Eastwood Construction Partners, Eastwood Homes, and three roofing subcontractors installed defective roofs. The case, Russo et al. v. Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC et al., was filed in Charleston County and removed to federal court as case number 2:20-cv-04267.1ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Nearly 400 South Carolina Homes Plagued by Shoddy Roofing Work
The complaint alleged defective ridge vents, improperly installed shingle underlayment, drip edges, and shingle fasteners, and use of a shingle-laying method called “racking” instead of the industry-standard “offset” technique. Plaintiffs said those failures caused water intrusion that damaged framing, drywall, and other interior components, along with premature shingle failure and shortened roof lifespan.1ClassAction.org. Class Action Claims Nearly 400 South Carolina Homes Plagued by Shoddy Roofing Work
The federal case never reached the merits. In March 2021, the district court dismissed it under Colorado River abstention because the plaintiffs had filed a nearly identical state-court case, Smiley, one day before the federal filing. Keeping both alive risked piecemeal litigation on state-law claims.2Midpage. Russo v. Eastwood Construction Partners LLC No public update on the state proceeding appears in the available record.
Adams Mill: The Active 2026 Defect Case
The most recent case was filed in March 2026. The Adams Mill Owners Association, along with individual homeowners Melissa Calandra and Kim Bright, sued Eastwood Construction LLC and a group of subcontractors in Greenville County. The suit was removed to federal court and assigned case number 6:26-cv-00986 before Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks.3PACER Monitor. Adams Mill Owners Association Inc et al v. Eastwood Construction LLC et al
One of the subcontractor defendants, Alpha Omega Construction Group, was also named in the 2020 roofing class action. Eastwood has filed a crossclaim against several of its own co-defendants, indicating it plans to shift at least part of the blame to its subcontractors. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court and to stay proceedings in March 2026; Alpha Omega answered the complaint in May 2026, and initial discovery has begun. The case remains in its early stages.3PACER Monitor. Adams Mill Owners Association Inc et al v. Eastwood Construction LLC et al
Dawkins: The Cancellation Clause Struck Down
A separate line of litigation went after Eastwood’s sales practices rather than its construction. Nine couples who had contracted to buy homes at Swygert’s Landing on Johns Island sued after Eastwood terminated their purchase agreements shortly before closing, citing an unspecified “HOA issue.”4Live 5 News. Judge Rules in Favor of Charleston Homebuyers in Lawsuit Against Builder
The disputed clause, titled “Seller Option to Cancel Prior to Closing,” let Eastwood cancel at its sole discretion if a “bona fide dispute” arose, and owed the buyer only a refund plus $100. The buyers alleged Eastwood used the clause as a pretext to void contracts signed at lower prices and resell the homes at higher market values, in violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.5CourtPlus. Dawkins v. Eastwood Homes of Columbia LLC, Complaint
In October 2024, Judge Scarborough ruled for the buyers, finding the contract unconscionable and lacking “any mutuality.” The court said the agreement “lulled the buyers into a false sense of security” and that “no reasonable, honest, or fair person would accept such terms that allow the party with superior bargaining power to terminate the agreement at-will and without meaningful consequence.”4Live 5 News. Judge Rules in Favor of Charleston Homebuyers in Lawsuit Against Builder
Eastwood appealed, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed in Ralph Dawkins v. Eastwood Homes of Columbia, LLC (2025-UP-239). The appellate court called the agreement a contract of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and it rejected Eastwood’s argument that the buyers’ personal sophistication cured the imbalance, citing the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Damico v. Lennar Carolinas, LLC.6CaseMine. Ralph Dawkins v. Eastwood Homes of Columbia LLC, 2025-UP-239
Two provisions drew particular criticism. Paragraph 26, the cancellation clause, gave Eastwood unilateral authority to cancel before closing for any reason, which the court called “plainly one-sided” and “unexpected.” Paragraph 25, the remedies clause, limited buyer recovery on an Eastwood default to deposits plus $100, while allowing Eastwood to pursue all available damages if the buyer defaulted. The court said that pairing gave the builder a “full coat of armor” while leaving consumers exposed.
The appellate court did vacate one part of the lower ruling. It found that South Carolina’s strong policy protecting homebuyers has historically applied to construction defects and implied warranties, not to a builder’s right to cancel a pre-closing contract.6CaseMine. Ralph Dawkins v. Eastwood Homes of Columbia LLC, 2025-UP-239
What Homeowners Report Outside of Court
Beyond formal litigation, Eastwood’s Better Business Bureau profile lists 39 complaints over a three-year period, with 17 closed in the most recent 12 months. Thirty-one of the 39 involve service or repair issues.7BBB. Eastwood Homes BBB Complaints
The complaints follow recognizable patterns. Homeowners report water intrusion, sewer line failures attributed to improper installation, sewage backups, and leaks damaging walls and flooring. Structural issues include rotting support posts and deteriorating deck components on homes as young as seven or eight years old. Landscaping and drainage failures within the first year after purchase come up repeatedly.7BBB. Eastwood Homes BBB Complaints
Eastwood’s responses follow patterns of their own. The company frequently cites the age of the home or the expiration of warranty periods to deny claims, classifies structural deterioration as “normal wear” attributable to coastal climate, directs homeowners to file through their own insurance, or notes it was not the original subdivision developer. In some cases it has offered donated materials as a courtesy without providing labor, while denying any obligation. Of the 39 BBB complaints, 36 are listed as “answered” and three as “resolved.”7BBB. Eastwood Homes BBB Complaints
How South Carolina Law Shapes These Claims
South Carolina gives homebuyers several tools when construction goes wrong. The state recognizes an implied warranty of habitability, established in the 1970 case Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, and an implied warranty of workmanship requiring builders to work carefully and diligently. The state’s highest court has also eliminated the privity requirement, holding that foreseeability of harm, not a direct contract, controls who can sue.8Sadler & Company. Caveat Venditor – Implied Warranties in SC Residential Construction
Two deadlines apply. The statute of limitations runs three years from the date the buyer knew or should have known of a defect. The statute of repose is a hard eight-year cutoff from substantial completion, regardless of when the defect appears.8Sadler & Company. Caveat Venditor – Implied Warranties in SC Residential Construction Before filing suit, homeowners must also provide notice and an opportunity to cure under the state’s Notice and Opportunity to Cure Construction Dwelling Defects Act.
The 2022 Damico v. Lennar Carolinas decision has become central to how South Carolina courts handle builder contracts. In that case, the state Supreme Court found a major builder’s purchase agreement unconscionable, struck down its arbitration clause, and held that individual buyers inherently lack equal bargaining power against large-scale homebuilders. It also refused to “blue-pencil” oppressive terms to salvage them.9FindLaw. Damico v. Lennar Carolinas LLC The Dawkins appellate panel leaned directly on Damico to reach its conclusion about Eastwood’s contract, and homeowners bringing future claims against Eastwood or other South Carolina builders now have both precedents to work with.