Housemasters, Inc. v. Murphy

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: May 27, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-291
• Status: Unpublished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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Housemasters, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Beth H. Murphy, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-291
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Frank M. Cisa, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant.

W. Turner Boone, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Housemasters, Inc., (Housemasters) appeals the trial court's factual finding that Beth H. Murphy established Housemaster's acceptance and negotiation of a $20,000.00 check offered in final payment of a disputed debt created an accord and satisfaction.  Housemasters argues its negotiation of the check was not an accord and satisfaction because there was no agreement to discharge the obligation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the judge will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings. . . . The judge's findings are equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action."); see Spartanburg Hotel Corp. v. Alexander Smith, Inc., 231 S.C. 1, 12, 97 S.E.2d 199, 204 (1957) (finding the creation of an accord and satisfaction is a question of fact for the jury).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

---

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