Supreme Court: USC fan exempt from seat-license fees

George M. Lee III was in Texas on business on Wednesday. He got the message about 8 a.m. Dallas time.

Lee didn’t need coffee to wake up when he read it.

“All they said is, ‘You won,’” Lee said. “Realistically, I should have won. They made a choice, now they can suffer the publicity.

“The gavel is dropped. They’re done.”

Lee, self-described as a South Carolina fan who has attended games since the old fieldhouse existed, saw a six-year battle conclude on Wednesday with a ruling in his favor. Lee, angered that USC and the Gamecock Club were violating a long-standing agreement he had with USC by trying to charge him a seat licensing fee through the Yearly Equitable Seating program, took them to court.

After a bench trial ruled in favor of USC and the Gamecock Club, Lee took the case to appellate court. The South Carolina Supreme Court took it from the appellate court and reversed the bench trial’s ruling on Wednesday.

The court ruled that USC breached the agreement with Lee by requiring him to pay the seat license fee as a prerequisite for the opportunity to purchase tickets.

Lee has been a member of the Gamecock Club for decades. In 1990, the Gamecock Club offered an opportunity for him to become a Lifetime Full Scholarship member, which would ensure that preferred seating at football and basketball games was protected. Lee agreed to take out a $100,000 life insurance policy with USC being the sole beneficiary to accept the higher level of membership.

As part of that eight-year agreement, the Gamecock Club said that Lee “would have the opportunity to purchase tickets entitled to the Gamecock Level or membership presently held.” When the eight years ended, the Gamecock Club notified Lee that it had not realized the needed cash value to insure the intended amount of the policy, which brought a new agreement.

Lee agreed to pay at least $500 per year to the Gamecock Club to retain his membership level and kept the same benefits. That lasted until 2008, when then-athletics director Eric Hyman instituted the YES program.

USC’s seat-licensing fee, required each year, would give Gamecock Club members, regardless of membership level, the opportunity to purchase tickets and maintain their current seats. To Lee, that violated his agreement.

A bench trial ruled that even if required to pay the seat licensing fee, Lee still retained the opportunity to purchase tickets, thus his argument didn’t hold up. Undaunted, Lee took the suit to appellate court, where the Supreme Court nabbed it. Meanwhile, Lee continued to pay $325 for each of his eight seats per season under protest.

“They would not send me my tickets until I paid the license fee,” Lee said. “It’s been bad, it’s been uncooperative, they had no regard to the rule of law. They think they’re above it all.”

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on Wednesday, reversing the bench trial’s ruling and awarding in favor of Lee and his sister, Elizabeth Sims, who also holds eight season tickets. The court ruled that USC attempted to impose an additional term that the parties did not agree upon, which is impermissible.

Lee said the Supreme Court’s ruling means that USC cannot appeal any higher, and that it will have to refund the money he paid for seat license fees. He also said that USC tried the same strongarm seat license fee system on 216 other longtime Gamecock Club members, and they would be due a refund as well.

Patrick McFarland, Executive Director of the Gamecock Club, politely declined comment on Wednesday afternoon, saying that all comments from USC or the Gamecock Club would have to come from university attorneys. USC Chief Communications Officer Wes Hickman also wrote an email saying that USC will not have a statement or comment on the decision until USC has examined it in detail.

Lee said he had taken 20 calls on Wednesday, all saying they had read the decision and were in the process of calling the Gamecock Club. Lee said he wrote McFarland on Wednesday, wondering when he would get his refund.

“I told them long ago, ‘Let’s just agree to an agreement privately,’” Lee said. “They refused. They didn’t realize I had a very long string. I flew the kite where it should go.”

Lee said he didn’t undertake the suit in pursuit of money. It was about compelling USC to hold up its end of an agreement.

“This was on my nickel,” Lee said. “I don’t get any attorney’s fees back, and I spent a bundle. I don’t like the way they acted, I don’t like the way I’ve been treated. This was about principle.”

This story was originally published April 2, 2014 at 12:33 PM with the headline "Supreme Court: USC fan exempt from seat-license fees."