Giove v. Design to Build

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

Edward Giove and Lauri
Giove, Respondents,

v.
Design to Build, Inc., Jonathan
Short, Tracy Short, and David
Gosnell, Defendants,
Of Whom David Gosnell is the Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Charleston County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-360
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed June 13, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

David J. Parrish, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Alan R. Belcher, Jr., of Charleston, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: David Gosnell appeals the circuit court's decision
confirming an arbitration award, arguing the circuit court erred in refusing to
modify or vacate the award. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: C-Sculptures, LLC v. Brown, 394 S.C. 519,
523, 716 S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Generally, an arbitration award is
conclusive and courts will refuse to review the merits of an award. An award
will be vacated only under narrow, limited circumstances." (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Harris v. Bennett, 332 S.C. 238, 243, 503 S.E.2d
782, 785 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[T]he decision of an [arbitrator] will be vacated
only under certain grounds as provided by statute or upon the non-statutory
ground of 'manifest disregard of the law.'"); C-Sculptures, 394 S.C. at 523,
716 S.E.2d at 680 ("An arbitrator manifestly disregards the law when he or
she appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle and
decides to ignore it."); Trident Technical Coll. v. Lucas & Stubbs, Ltd., 286
S.C. 98, 108, 333 S.E.2d 781, 787 (1985) ("[V]acat[ing] an arbitration award
where there is a manifest disregard or perverse misconstruction of the law . . .
requir[es] circumstances far more egregious than mere errors in interpreting
or applying the law."); Harris, 332 S.C. at 243, 503 S.E.2d at 785
("[A]rbitrators exceed their powers only if the issue resolved by them is not
within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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