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
Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC, Appellant,
FS&S Holding, Inc. and Nationwide Insurance Company, Defendants,
Of whom FS&S Holding,
Inc. is the Respondent.
Appeal from Berkeley County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-335
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30,2012
Steven L. Smith, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Thomas Bailey Smith, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees to FS&S Holding, Inc. as the prevailing party in this mechanic's lien action, arguing the award was improper because the amount of the award was excessive. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: EFCO Corp. v. Renaissance on Charleston Harbor, LLC, 370 S.C. 612, 621, 635 S.E.2d 922, 926 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The determination of the amount of attorney['s] fees that should be awarded under the mechanic's lien statute is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (footnote omitted)); Keeney's Metal Roofing, Inc. v. Palmieri, 345 S.C. 550, 553, 548 S.E.2d 900, 901 (Ct. App. 2001) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when, inter alia, the trial [court]'s ruling is based upon an error of law."); EFCO, 370 S.C. at 621, 635 S.E.2d at 926 (providing the trial court should consider the following six factors in awarding reasonable attorney's fees: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; and (6) customary legal fees for similar services" (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 621, 635 S.E.2d at 927 (holding an award for attorney's fees, on appeal, will be affirmed so long as sufficient evidence in the record supports each factor).
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.