Berkeley Hall Club v. Palmer

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: September 18, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-542
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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

---

Berkeley Hall Club, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Fred I. Palmer, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Beaufort County
Curtis L. Coltrane, Special Circuit Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-542
Heard September 16, 2008 – Filed September 18, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Roberts Vaux and Douglas L. Novak, both of Bluffton, for Appellant.

Terry A. Finger, of Hilton Head, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal involves a dispute over past due assessment fees.  On appeal, Fred I. Palmer (Palmer) argues (1) the trial court erred in failing to provide sufficient factual findings to support its conclusions; (2) the trial court erred in failing to comply with Rule 52(a), SCRCP; and (3) the trial court erred in failing to provide factual findings in its order denying appellant’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.  The issues on appeal are procedural and do not challenge the substantive conclusions reached by the trial court.  Moreover, at oral argument, appellant conceded that any attempt to amend the pleadings was abandoned at trial.

We affirm the order of the trial court pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to issues 1 and 2:  Rule 52(a), SCRCP (requiring the trial court to find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 123-24 (1991) (“Where a trial court substantially complies with Rule 52(a) and adequately states the basis for the result it reaches, the appellate court should not vacate the trial court’s judgment for lack of an explicit or specific factual finding.”); In the Matter of the Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122, 133, 568 S.E.2d 338, 343 (2002) (“We do not require a lower court to set out findings on all the myriad factual questions arising in a particular case.”); Biales v. Young, 315 S.C. 166, 168, 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993) (noting failure to challenge a ruling of the lower court renders the issue abandoned and precludes consideration on appeal); Charleston Lumber Co., Inc. v. Miller Hous. Corp., 338 S.C. 171, 175, 525 S.E.2d 869, 871 (2000) (finding an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case).  As to issue 3: Rule 52(a), SCRCP (stating findings of fact and conclusions of law are not necessary on various motions). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, J.J., concur.