Atlantic Coast Builders v. Lewis

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

Atlantic Coast Builders and Contractors, Respondent,

v.

Laura Lewis, Appellant.

Appeal From Beaufort County

 Curtis L. Coltrane, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-042

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
15, 2009

AFFIRMED

Hemphill P. Pride, II, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Beth Ann Gilleland, of Bluffton and John P. Qualey, Jr., of Hilton Head Island, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Atlantic
Coast Builders, LLC (Atlantic), brought this action against Laura Lewis for
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of lease, and breach of
quiet enjoyment.  Lewis answered and filed a counterclaim for breach of
contract.  The trial court granted judgment to Atlantic for negligent
misrepresentation in the amount of $10,160.79.  Lewis appealed.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities.    

1.  As to whether the trial court
erred in denying Lewis’s directed verdict motion: State v. Bailey, 368
S.C. 39, 43 n. 4, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 n. 4 (Ct. App. 2006) (“If a defendant
presents evidence after the denial of his directed verdict motion at the close
of the [plaintiff’s] case, he must make another directed verdict motion at the
close of all evidence in order to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence.”); Dodge
v. Dodge, 332 S.C. 401, 418, 505 S.E.2d 344, 353 (Ct. App. 1998)
(holding an issue not specifically raised in an Rule 59(e),
SCRCP, motion for reconsideration was not preserved
for review); Fickling v. City of Charleston, 372 S.C. 597, 601, 643
S.E.2d 110, 112 (Ct. App. 1997) (viewing a motion in a non-jury case as a directed
verdict motion where the parties treated the motion as a directed verdict
motion and noting a trial court’s ruling on an issue becomes the law of the
case where the appellant fails to take exception to it both before the trial
court and on appeal); Ducworth v. Neely, 319 S.C. 158, 159 n.1, 459
S.E.2d 896, 897 n.1 (Ct. App. 1995) (providing the motion styled directed
verdict was instead a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(b) because it was a
non-jury action).

2.  As
to whether the trial court erred in granting judgment against Lewis and denying
her counterclaim: Butler Contracting, Inc., v. Court Street, LLC,
369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255 (2006) (holding in an action at law tried without a jury, the
court’s findings of fact will be upheld on appeal when reasonably supported by
the evidence); Slack v. James, 356 S.C. 479, 482, 589 S.E.2d 772,
774 (Ct. App. 2003) (“The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation of
fact is justified in relying on its truth, although he might have discovered
its falsity through investigation.”); Bivens v. Watkins, 313 S.C. 228,
230-35, 437 S.E.2d 132, 133-36 (Ct. App. 1993) (applying a legal
standard of review on appeal from causes of action alleging negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty
and holding the “judging of the credibility of witnesses
and the weighing of evidence in a law case are uniquely functions of the trial court”); AMA Management Corp.
v. Strasburger, 309 S.C. 213, 222, 420 S.E.2d 868, 874 (Ct. App. 1992)
(holding to establish liability for negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff
must show: “(1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff; (2)
the defendant had a pecuniary interest in making the representation; (3) the
defendant owed a duty of care to see that he communicated truthful information
to the plaintiff; (4) the defendant breached that duty by failing to exercise
due care; (5) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation; and (6)
the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss as the proximate result of his reliance
upon the representation.”).   

3.  As to whether the trial court erred in awarding Atlantic
its award of the security deposit: Staubes
v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406,
412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) (holding an issue cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial
court to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Nelson, 331 S.C.
1, 6 n. 6, 501 S.E.2d 716, 718 n. 6 (1998) (“[T]he ultimate goal behind
preservation of error rules is to insure that an issue raised on appeal has
first been addressed to and ruled on by the trial court.”).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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