Rea Contracting v. Douglas Smith Backhoe

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

Rea
Contracting, L.L.C., a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Respondent,

v.

Douglas Smith
Backhoe and Excavating, Inc., a South Carolina Corporation, and Douglas Smith
Individually, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

S. Jackson Kimball, III, Master-In-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-347

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 23,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Daniel Dominic D'Agostino, of York, for Appellant.

David B. Sample, of Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Douglas Smith Backhoe and Excavation (Backhoe) appeals the decisions of the
master-in-equity that (1) granted Rea Contracting attorney's fees and prejudgment
interest; (2) failed to award Backhoe attorney's fees and costs pursuant to
Rule 11, SCRCP, and section 15-36-10 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008);
and (3) dismissed without prejudice Rea Contracting's request to pierce the
corporate veil.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b) and the following
authorities:

1.  As to whether the
master erred in awarding Rea Contracting attorney's fees and prejudgment
interest: Rule 54(c), SCRCP ("Except
as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final
judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is
rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his
pleadings."); Battery Homeowners Ass'n v. Lincoln Fin. Res., 309
S.C. 247, 422 S.E.2d 93 (1992) (holding trial court properly awarded attorney's
fees and penalties when plaintiff sought neither in its complaint but an
agreement between the parties provided for such relief).

2.  As to whether the master
erred in failing to award Backhoe attorney's fees and costs under Rule 11, SCRCP, and section 15-36-10:  Russell v. Wachovia Bank, 370 S.C. 5, 19,
633 S.E.2d 722, 729 (2006) (stating an abuse of discretion may be found when
the conclusions reached by the court are without reasonable factual support); Rutland
v. Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond & Garner, 371 S.C. 91, 97, 637 S.E.2d
316, 319 (Ct. App. 2006) (instructing an appellate court may take its own view
of the evidence then apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the trial
court's decision to award sanctions).

3.  As to whether the master
erred in dismissing without prejudice Rea Contracting's request to pierce the
corporate veil: Staubes v. City of
Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529
S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, PIEPER,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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