Parker v. Abdullah

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

William Parker and Dorothy Parker, Respondents,

v.

Pier Abdullah and Aazim Abdullah aka Lynwood K. Daniels, Appellants.

Appeal
From Orangeburg County

Olin
D. Burgdorf, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished
Opinion No. 2012-UP-107

Heard
January 25, 2012 – Filed February 22, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Glenn
Walters and R. Bentz Kirby, both of Columbia, for Appellants.

J.
Christopher Wilson, of Bamberg, for Respondents.

PER
CURIAM: 
Pier and Aazim Abdullah appeal the master-in-equity's award to William and
Dorothy Parker of $17,250 in damages and $4,824.65 in costs and attorney's fees
arising out of the breach of a lease agreement with the option to purchase.  We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to the date the option to purchase expired: Patterson
v. Reid, 318 S.C. 183, 185, 456 S.E.2d 436, 437 (Ct. App. 1995) ("A
party cannot for the first time raise an issue by way of a Rule 59(e) [SCRCP] motion which could have been raised at
trial.").

2. As to the amount of damages awarded: Silver
v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 590, 658
S.E.2d 539, 541-42 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An action to construe a contract is
an action at law.  Likewise, '[a]n action for breach of contract seeking money
damages is an action at law.'" (alteration by court) (citations omitted)); id. at 590, 658 S.E.2d at 542 ("When reviewing a judgment made in a
law case tried by a master without a jury, the appellate court will not disturb
the master's findings of fact unless the findings are found to be without
evidence reasonably supporting them."); Conner v. Alvarez,
285 S.C. 97, 101, 328 S.E.2d 334, 336 (1985) ("Courts are without
authority to alter a contract by construction or to make a new contract for the
parties.  Their duty is limited to the interpretation of the contract made by
the parties themselves . . . regardless of its wisdom or folly, apparent
unreasonableness, or failure to guard their rights carefully."  (omission
by court) (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Bell v. Bennett, 307
S.C. 286, 294-95, 414 S.E.2d 786, 791 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding issues not
raised in appellate brief are deemed abandoned and prior rulings on those
issues constitute the law of the case); Madren
v. Bradford, 378 S.C. 187, 195, 661
S.E.2d 390, 395 (Ct. App. 2008) ("When calculating damages for breach of
contract, damages should place a nonbreaching party in the position he would
have enjoyed had the contract been performed.").

3.  As to whether the refund of the Parkers' deposit
constituted an accord and satisfaction: Linda Mc Co. v. Shore, 390 S.C.
543, 555, 703 S.E.2d 499, 505 (2010) ("The elements of an accord
and satisfaction are (1) an agreement between the parties to settle a dispute
and (2) the payment of the consideration which supports the agreement."); id. at
555-56, 703 S.E.2d at 505 ("The debtor must intend and make unmistakably
clear that the payment tendered fully satisfies the creditor's demand.  Without
an agreement to discharge the obligation there can be no accord, and without an
accord there can be no satisfaction." (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

4.  As to the award of attorney's fees: Laser
Supply & Servs., Inc. v. Orchard Park Assocs.,
382 S.C. 326, 340, 676 S.E.2d 139, 147 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The review of
attorney fees awarded pursuant to a contract is governed by an abuse of
discretion standard. . . . An appellate court will not reverse an award unless
it is based on an error of law or is without any evidentiary support.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.