Knightsbridge v. Nadeau

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

Knightsbridge Property Owners Association, Inc.,
Respondent,

v.

Paul A. Nadeau, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001696

Appeal From York County
S. Jackson Kimball, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-201
Submitted April 1, 2018 – Filed May 9, 2018

AFFIRMED

J. Edwin McDonnell, of South Carolina Legal Services,
of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Stephanie Carol Trotter, of McCabe, Trotter & Beverly,
P.C., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Paul A. Nadeau appeals the master-in-equity's order granting
foreclosure of Knightsbridge Property Owners Association, Inc.'s (Knightsbridge's)
lien for unpaid assessments. On appeal, Nadeau argues the master erred by finding
(1) Knightsbridge acted properly in levying assessments and foreclosing liens for
nonpayment of assessments and (2) Nadeau is estopped from raising claims
challenging the assessment rate because he did not raise the issue before final
judgment in the foreclosure proceeding and he paid monies toward the assessment
without protest. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to Issue 1: Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Murray, 419
S.C. 605, 614, 799 S.E.2d 310, 315 (Ct. App. 2017) ("The appellate court's
standard of review in equitable matters is our own view of the preponderance of
the evidence." (quoting Horry Cty. v. Ray, 382 S.C. 76, 80, 674 S.E.2d 519, 522
(Ct. App. 2009))), cert. denied (Mar. 7, 2018); Buffington v. T.O.E. Enters., 383
S.C. 388, 391, 680 S.E.2d 289, 290 (2009) ("While this standard permits a broad
scope of review, an appellate court will not disregard the findings of the [master
who] saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their
credibility."); Belle Hall, 419 S.C. at 615, 799 S.E.2d at 315 ("[It is the] burden [of
the] appellant to satisfy the appellate court that the preponderance of the evidence
is against the finding of the [master]." (third alteration in original) (quoting
Crossland v. Crossland, 404 S.C. 443, 452, 759 S.E.2d 419, 424 (2014)));
Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Pelzer, 292 S.C. 343, 347, 356 S.E.2d 411,
414 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[A] corporation may exercise only those powers which are
granted to it by law, by its charter or articles of incorporation, and by any bylaws
made pursuant thereto; acts beyond the scope of the powers so granted are ultra
vires.").

2. As to Issue 2: Id. at 348, 356 S.E.2d at 414 (holding the appellant was estopped
from seeking a refund of fees paid when "he acquiesced in the method of
assessment and paid the [fees]" despite his awareness the fees were "not being
assessed in accordance with the [governing documents]").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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