Vance v. Horry Electric Cooperative

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

Tammy Vance and David Montorio, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Respondents,

v.

Horry Electric Cooperative, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000641

Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-335
Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 29, 2016

AFFIRMED

Pope D. Johnson, III, of Pope D. Johnson, III, Attorney at
Law, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Natale Fata, of Nate Fata, PA, of Surfside Beach; and
James L. Ward, Jr., Thomas Christopher Tuck, and
Catherine H. McElveen, all of Richardson Patrick
Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234, 241, 672 S.E.2d 799, 802
(Ct. App. 2009) ("In South Carolina jurisprudence, settlement agreements are
viewed as contracts."); Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 590,
658 S.E.2d 539, 541 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An action to construe a contract is an action
at law."); Townes Assocs. Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d
773, 775 (1976) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the
findings of fact of the [court] will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be
without evidence which reasonably supports the [court]'s findings."); M & M Grp.,
Inc. v. Holmes, 379 S.C. 468, 476, 666 S.E.2d 262, 266 (Ct. App. 2008) ("To
discover the intention of a contract, the court must first look to its language–if the
language is perfectly plain and capable of legal construction, it alone determines
the document's force and effect." (quoting Ecclesiastes Prod. Ministries v.
Outparcel Assocs., L.L.C., 374 S.C. 483, 498, 649 S.E.2d 494, 501 (Ct. App.
2007))); id. ("If practical, documents will be interpreted to give effect to all of their
provisions."); id. ("The primary test of a contract's character is 'the intention of the
parties, such intention to be gathered from the whole scope and effect of the
language used.'" (quoting Barnacle Broad., Inc. v. Baker Broad., Inc., 343 S.C.
140, 147, 538 S.E.2d 672, 675 (Ct. App. 2000))).

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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