Berkeley Hall Club v. Palmer

THIS OPINION HAS
NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Berkeley Hall Club, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Fred I. Palmer, Appellant.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Curtis L.
Coltrane, Special Circuit Judge

Unpublished Opinion
No.  2008-UP-542

Heard September
16, 2008 – Filed September 18, 2008

AFFIRMED

Roberts Vaux and
Douglas L. Novak, both of Bluffton, for Appellant.

Terry A. Finger,
of Hilton Head, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This
appeal involves a dispute over past due assessment fees.  On appeal, Fred I.
Palmer (Palmer) argues (1) the trial court erred in failing to provide sufficient
factual findings to support its conclusions; (2) the trial court erred in
failing to comply with Rule 52(a), SCRCP; and (3) the trial court erred in
failing to provide factual findings in its order denying appellant’s Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend the judgment.  The issues on appeal are procedural and
do not challenge the substantive conclusions reached by the trial court. 
Moreover, at oral argument, appellant conceded that any attempt to amend the
pleadings was abandoned at trial.

We affirm the order of the trial court pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR,
and the following authorities: As to issues 1 and 2:  Rule 52(a), SCRCP
(requiring the trial court to find the facts specially and state separately its
conclusions of law thereon); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403
S.E.2d 122, 123-24 (1991) (“Where a trial court substantially complies with
Rule 52(a) and adequately states the basis for the result it reaches, the
appellate court should not vacate the trial court’s judgment for lack of an
explicit or specific factual finding.”); In the Matter of the Treatment and
Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122, 133, 568 S.E.2d 338, 343 (2002) (“We do
not require a lower court to set out findings on all the myriad factual
questions arising in a particular case.”); Biales v. Young, 315 S.C.
166, 168, 432 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1993) (noting failure to challenge a ruling of
the lower court renders the issue abandoned and precludes consideration on
appeal); Charleston Lumber Co., Inc. v. Miller Hous. Corp., 338 S.C.
171, 175, 525 S.E.2d 869, 871 (2000) (finding an
unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case).  As to
issue 3: Rule 52(a), SCRCP (stating findings of fact and conclusions of law are
not necessary on various motions). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, J.J., concur.