Paschal v. East Hampton Properties, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 9, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-011
• Status: Unpublished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

Geraldine Paschal and Roland Delateja, Appellants,

v.

East Hampton Properties, LLC, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
 G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-011
Submitted January 1, 2008 – Filed January 9, 2008   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Adam  Fisher, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellants.

Daniel Crawford Patterson, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:[1] Following a thorough review of the briefs and record in this case, we are unable to find error on the part of the circuit court in its determination that Appellants failed to prove Respondent violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), South Carolina Code Section 39-5-20 (Supp. 2006).  Therefore, we affirm pursuant to the following authorities: Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp., 318 S.C. 471, 482, 458 S.E.2d 431, 438 (Ct. App. 1995) (“The statute clearly requires that in order to recover pursuant to the UTPA one must prove each of the following three elements by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence: 1) a violation of the Act, 2) proximate cause, and 3) damages.”) and Wayne Smith Const. Co., Inc. v. Wolman, Duberstein, & Thompson, 294 S.C. 140, 146, 363 S.E.2d 115, 118 (Ct. App. 1987) (“In a law case tried without a jury, questions regarding the credibility and the weight of evidence are exclusively for the trial judge.”).  Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, SHORT, and WILLIAMS JJ., concur.

---

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