Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District v. Silver

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

Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District, Respondent,

v.

Randy P. Silver, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-155428

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gordon G. Cooper, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-259
Submitted May 1, 2013 – Filed June 19, 2013

AFFIRMED

Reginald L. Foster, of Reginald L. Foster, PA, of
Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Lawrence E. Flynn, Jr., of Lister, Flynn & Kelly, PA, of
Spartanburg; and Norman Ward Lambert, of Harper
Lambert & Brown, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Inlet Harbour v. S.C. Dep't of Parks, Rec. & Tourism, 377 S.C. 86, 91,
659 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2008) ("In an action at equity, tried by a judge alone, an
appellate court may find facts in accordance with its own view of the
preponderance of the evidence."); Straight v. Goss, 383 S.C. 180, 192, 678 S.E.2d
443, 449 (Ct. App. 2009) ("However, [appellate courts] are not required to
disregard the findings of the trial [court] who saw and heard the witnesses and was
in a better position to judge their credibility."); Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354
S.C. 648, 674-75, 582 S.E.2d 432, 446 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Elements of equitable
estoppel as to the party estopped are: (1) conduct by the party estopped which
amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention
that such conduct shall be acted upon by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual
or constructive, of the true facts."); id. at 675, 582 S.E.2d at 446 ("Application of
equitable estoppel does not require an intentional misrepresentation."); S. Dev.
Land & Golf Co., Ltd. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 311 S.C. 29, 33, 426 S.E.2d 748,
751 (1993) ("Silence, when it is intended, or when it has the effect of misleading a
party, may operate as equitable estoppel."); Queen's Grant II Horizontal Prop.
Regime v. Greenwood Dev. Corp., 368 S.C. 342, 358, 628 S.E.2d 902, 911 (Ct.
App. 2006) (providing estoppel by silence occurs when a party observes another
acting in a manner inconsistent with his rights and "makes no objection while the
other party changes his position based on the party's silence").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, CJ., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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