Nova Homes v. Singh

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

Nova Homes,
Inc., Respondent,

v.

Harishyam and
Seema Singh, Branch Banking and Trust Co. of South Carolina, Appellants.

Appeal From Greenville County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-001

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed January
20, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Wendell Leon Hawkins, of Greer, for
Appellants.

Cynthia Buck Brown, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellants Harishyam and Seema Singh, and
Branch Banking and Trust Co. of South Carolina, appeal the trial court's order confirming
an arbitration award, including attorneys' fees, and granting Nova Home Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment as to foreclosure on a mechanic's lien.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-130 (2005)
(providing statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award); Gissel v.
Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 241, 676 S.E.2d 320, 323 (2009) ("Generally, an
arbitration award is conclusive and courts will refuse to review the merits of
an award.  An award will be vacated only under narrow, limited
circumstances.");  Lauro v. Visnapuu, 351 S.C. 507, 516, 570 S.E.2d
551, 555-56 (Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing limited ability to review an
arbitration award, and finding the decision of an arbitrator will be vacated
only on statutory grounds, or on the non-statutory ground of manifest disregard
or perverse misconstruction of the law); Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C.
238, 244, 503 S.E.2d 782, 786 (Ct. App. 1998) (finding the non-statutory ground
of manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law requires more than
a mere error in construing or applying the law); id. at 246, 503 S.E.2d
at 787 (finding no reversible error by the trial court in confirming the
arbitration award because there was no showing the arbitrator appreciated the
existence of a clearly governing legal principle and decided to ignore it).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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