Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-543 - O’Berry v. Carthens

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


Eugene O’Berry, Jr. d/b/a G. O’Berry Painting, Remodeling & Power Washing, Respondent,

v.

Norman Carthens, Appellant.


Appeal From Barnwell County
 J. Martin Harvey, Special Referee


Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-543
Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed September 18, 2008 


AFFIRMED


Joshua  Koger, Jr., of North, for Appellant.

Evert  Comer, Jr., of Denmark, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:    We affirm[1] the order of the special referee pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Court Street, LLC, 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255-56 (2006) (finding the foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien is an action at law.  In an action at law, tried without a jury, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are wholly unsupported by the evidence or unless it clearly appears the findings are controlled by an error of law); West v. Newberry Elec. Co-op., 357 S.C. 537, 543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding issue that is neither addressed by trial court in final order nor raised by way of Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion is not preserved for review).  Further, we grant the guardian ad litem’s petition to be relieved.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CURETON and GOOLSBY, A.J.J. Concur.


[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.