Lucas v. The Bristol Condominium

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

John T. Lucas, Sr., as Trustee of the John T. Lucas
Revocable Trust and Carolyn C. Lucas Revocable Trust,
Appellant,

v.

The Bristol Condominium Property Owners Association,
Respondent,

and

The Bristol Condominium Property Owners Association,
Plaintiff,

John T. Lucas, Sr., as Trustee of the John T. Lucas
Revocable Trust Dated November 10, 2004, and Carolyn
C. Lucas Revocable Trust Dated November 10, 2004,
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

v.

The Bristol Condominium Property Owners Association,
Counterclaim Defendant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000118

Appeal From Charleston County
James C. Williams, Jr., Special Referee
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-313
Heard May 7, 2015 – Filed June 24, 2015

AFFIRMED

Joseph A. Mooneyham, of Mooneyham Berry, LLC, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

M. Dawes Cooke, Jr. and Kenneth Michael Barfield, of
Barnwell Whaley Patterson & Helms, LLC; and David B.
Wheeler and Joseph Timothy Belton, of Moore & Van
Allen, PLLC, all of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this civil appeal, John Lucas argues the circuit court erred in
finding he failed to prove his claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) fraud, (3)
negligent misrepresentation, and (4) wrongful or retaliatory foreclosure. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Jordan v.
Holt, 362 S.C. 201, 205, 608 S.E.2d 129, 131 (2005) ("[A] claim of breach of
fiduciary duty is an action at law. . . ." (citation omitted)); Moseley v. All Things
Possible, Inc., 395 S.C. 492, 495, 719 S.E.2d 656, 658 (2011) ("An action for fraud
is an action at law."); Epworth Children's Home v. Beasley, 365 S.C. 157, 164, 616
S.E.2d 710, 714 (2005) ("When reviewing an action at law, on appeal of a case
tried without a jury, the appellate court's jurisdiction is limited to correction of
errors at law. The appellate court will not disturb the [circuit court]'s findings of
fact as long as they are reasonably supported by the evidence." (citation omitted)).1

AFFIRMED.

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

1
Lucas's brief cited no authority in support of his wrongful foreclosure claim;
therefore, we find this issue abandoned on appeal. See Potter v. Spartanburg Sch.
Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 24, 716 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed
abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only
conclusory.").