Housemasters, Inc. v. Murphy

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

Housemasters,
Inc., Appellant,

v.

Beth H. Murphy, Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-291

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Frank M. Cisa, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant.

W. Turner Boone, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Housemasters,
Inc., (Housemasters) appeals the trial court's factual finding that Beth H. Murphy established Housemaster's acceptance and negotiation
of a $20,000.00 check offered in final payment of a disputed debt created an
accord and satisfaction.  Housemasters argues its negotiation of the check was
not an accord and satisfaction because there was no agreement to discharge the
obligation.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: 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 judge will
not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which
reasonably supports the judge's findings. . . . The judge's findings are
equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action."); see Spartanburg
Hotel Corp. v. Alexander Smith, Inc., 231 S.C. 1, 12, 97 S.E.2d 199,
204 (1957) (finding the creation of an accord and satisfaction is a
question of fact for the jury).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and
PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

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