Entwistle Builders v. Harris

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

Entwistle
Builders, Inc., A South Carolina Corporation, Appellant,

v.

Mark Steele
Harris, Respondent,

v.

James M. Entwistle,

individually, Defendant.      

Appeal From Charleston County

 Mikell R. Scarborough, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-583

Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed
December 14, 2009

AFFIRMED

William A. Scott, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Michael D. Moore, of Ridgeville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Entwistle Builders, Inc. (Entwistle) appeals an arbitration award entered in
favor of Mark Steele Harris and the trial court's order denying Entwistle's
motion to vacate the award.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:   Trident Technical Coll. v. Lucas & Stubbs, Ltd., 286 S.C. 98, 111, 333 S.E.2d 781, 789 (1985) (noting arbitrators need not specify their
reasoning or the basis of an award so long as the factual inferences and legal
conclusions supporting the award are barely colorable);  Weimer v. Jones,
364 S.C. 78, 80, 610 S.E.2d 850, 852 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding absent statutory
grounds, an arbitration award will be vacated only on the ground of
"manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law");  Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 243, 503 S.E.2d 782, 785
(Ct. App. 1998) (stating an appellate court need not review the merits of the decision if an issue is
within the scope of the arbitration agreement). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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