Coen v. Crowley

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

Richard H.
Coen, Coen Capital, LLC, and Lowcountry Capital, LLC, Respondents,

v.

Dianne Crowley,
Cecil Crowley, Steve Carroll, Individually and as Principals and Agents of
RedWing, LLC & Wings Over America, Inc.; RedWing, LLC & Wings Over
America, Inc.,

Appeal From Charleston County

J.C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-134

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 29, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Andrew K. Epting, Jr. and Michelle N.
Endemann, both of Charleston, for Appellants.

Hugh W. Buyck, of Mount Pleasant, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Dianne
Crowley, Cecil Crowley, Steve Carroll, individually and as principals and
agents of Redwing, LLC and Wings Over America, Inc. (collectively Redwing) appeal the
trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed against them by Richard H. Coen, Coen Capital, LLC, and Lowcountry
Capital, LLC.[1] 
We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Aiken v. World Fin. Corp. of S.C., 373 S.C. 144, 148, 644 S.E.2d 705, 707 (2007) ("The
determination of whether a claim is subject to arbitration is subject to de novo review. Nevertheless, a [trial] court's factual findings will not
be reversed on appeal if any evidence reasonably supports the findings."
(citation omitted)); Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc., 363 S.C.
628, 632, 611 S.E.2d 305, 307 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Arbitration rests on
the agreement of the parties, and the range of issues that can be arbitrated is
restricted by the terms of the agreement." (quotation
marks omitted)); id. at 633, 611 S.E.2d at 307 ("[A] clause
compelling arbitration for any claim 'arising out of or relating to this
agreement' may cover disputes outside the agreement, but only if those disputes
relate to the subject matter of that agreement."
(quotation marks omitted)); Partain v. Upstate Auto. Grp., 386 S.C.
488, 491-92, 689 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2010) ("[W]hen deciding whether an arbitration
agreement encompasses a dispute, a court must determine whether the factual
allegations underlying the claim are within the
scope of the broad arbitration clause.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decline to address Redwing's second issue
regarding its motion to stay because the motion to compel arbitration issue is
dispositive.  See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown,
Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate
court need not address appellant's remaining issues when its determination of a
prior issue is dispositive).

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