Forest Oaks v. W. E. Grading & Sand

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Forest Oaks, LLC,       
Appellant,

v.

W. E. Grading & Sand, LLC,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-646

Submitted August 20, 2003 – Filed November 4, 2003

AFFIRMED

David Edward Belding and Gilbert Scott Bagnell,  both of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Kevin Phillip Brady and Randall S. Hiller, both of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Forest Oaks, LLC, filed a complaint
against W.E. Grading & Sand, LLC, seeking damages for breach of a grading
contract and injury to property.  W.E. Grading counterclaimed on a mechanic’s
lien for the balance due on its grading contract.  The jury entered two verdicts:
one in favor of Forest Oaks in the amount of $12,750, and another in favor of
W.E. Grading in the amount of $30,933.  Following the verdict, W.E. Grading
moved for attorney’s fees under the mechanic’s lien statute, and the court entered
an order awarding W.E. Grading $9,355 in attorney’s fees. 

Forest Oaks appeals, arguing the evidence W.E.
Grading presented was insufficient to show its entitlement to attorney’s fees
and, even if it was sufficient, that W.E. Grading was not entitled to attorney’s
fees because Forest Oaks was the prevailing party.  We affirm
[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C.
Code Ann. § 29-5-10(b) (Supp. 2002); Stevenson v. Stevenson, 295 S.C.
412, 368 S.E.2d 901 (1988) (stating that the trial court’s award of attorney’s
fees will not be overturned unless it is controlled by an error of law or is
without evidentiary support); Humbert v. State, 345 S.C. 332, 548 S.E.2d
862 (2001) (requiring an issue to be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge
in order to preserve it for appellate review); Richland County v. Kaiser,
351 S.C. 89, 96-97, 567 S.E.2d 260, 264 (Ct. App. 2002) (“An abuse of discretion
occurs when a court’s decision is controlled by an error of law or is without
evidentiary support.”); Lauro v. Visnapuu, 351 S.C. 507, 522, 570 S.E.2d
551, 558 (Ct. App. 2002) (“Under our statutory scheme, the award of fees to
the prevailing party in a mechanic’s lien action is automatic and mandatory.”).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CONNOR and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.

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