Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-583 - Entwistle Builders v. Harris

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Entwistle Builders, Inc., A South Carolina Corporation, Appellant,

v.

Mark Steele Harris, Respondent,

v.

James M. Entwistle,
individually, Defendant.      


Appeal From Charleston County
 Mikell R. Scarborough, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-583
Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 14, 2009


AFFIRMED


William A. Scott, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Michael D. Moore, of Ridgeville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Entwistle Builders, Inc. (Entwistle) appeals an arbitration award entered in favor of Mark Steele Harris and the trial court's order denying Entwistle's motion to vacate the award.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:   Trident Technical Coll. v. Lucas & Stubbs, Ltd., 286 S.C. 98, 111, 333 S.E.2d 781, 789 (1985) (noting arbitrators need not specify their reasoning or the basis of an award so long as the factual inferences and legal conclusions supporting the award are barely colorable);  Weimer v. Jones, 364 S.C. 78, 80, 610 S.E.2d 850, 852 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding absent statutory grounds, an arbitration award will be vacated only on the ground of "manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law");  Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 243, 503 S.E.2d 782, 785 (Ct. App. 1998) (stating an appellate court need not review the merits of the decision if an issue is within the scope of the arbitration agreement). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.