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
Nova Homes, Inc., Respondent,
Harishyam and Seema Singh, Branch Banking and Trust Co. of South Carolina, Appellants.
Appeal From Greenville County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-001
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed January 20, 2011
Wendell Leon Hawkins, of Greer, for Appellants.
Cynthia Buck Brown, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellants Harishyam and Seema Singh, and Branch Banking and Trust Co. of South Carolina, appeal the trial court's order confirming an arbitration award, including attorneys' fees, and granting Nova Home Inc.'s motion for summary judgment as to foreclosure on a mechanic's lien. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-130 (2005) (providing statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award); Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 241, 676 S.E.2d 320, 323 (2009) ("Generally, an arbitration award is conclusive and courts will refuse to review the merits of an award. An award will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances."); Lauro v. Visnapuu, 351 S.C. 507, 516, 570 S.E.2d 551, 555-56 (Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing limited ability to review an arbitration award, and finding the decision of an arbitrator will be vacated only on statutory grounds, or on the non-statutory ground of manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law); Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 244, 503 S.E.2d 782, 786 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the non-statutory ground of manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law requires more than a mere error in construing or applying the law); id. at 246, 503 S.E.2d at 787 (finding no reversible error by the trial court in confirming the arbitration award because there was no showing the arbitrator appreciated the existence of a clearly governing legal principle and decided to ignore it).
FEW, C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.