Swamp Fox Utilities v. FS & S Holding

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

Swamp Fox
Utilities, LLC, Appellant,

v.

FS&S Holding,
Inc. and Nationwide Insurance Company, Defendants,

Of whom
FS&S Holding,

Inc. is the Respondent.

Appeal from Berkeley County

Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-335  

Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30,2012

AFFIRMED

Steven L. Smith, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Thomas Bailey Smith, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees to
FS&S Holding, Inc. as the prevailing party in this mechanic's lien action,
arguing the award was improper because the amount of the award was excessive.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: EFCO Corp. v. Renaissance on Charleston
Harbor, LLC, 370 S.C. 612, 621, 635 S.E.2d 922, 926 (Ct. App. 2006)
("The determination of the amount of attorney['s] fees that should be
awarded under the mechanic's lien statute is addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial court.  The court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion." (footnote omitted)); Keeney's Metal
Roofing, Inc. v. Palmieri, 345 S.C. 550, 553, 548 S.E.2d 900, 901 (Ct. App.
2001) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when, inter alia, the
trial [court]'s ruling is based upon an error of law."); EFCO, 370 S.C.
at 621, 635 S.E.2d at 926 (providing the trial court should consider the
following six factors in awarding reasonable attorney's fees: "(1) the
nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to
the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of
compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; and (6) customary legal fees for
similar services" (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 621,
635 S.E.2d at 927 (holding an award for attorney's fees, on appeal, will be
affirmed so long as sufficient evidence in the record supports each
factor).       

AFFIRMED.

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

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