Paschal v. East Hampton Properties, LLC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Geraldine
Paschal and Roland Delateja, Appellants,

v.

East Hampton Properties, LLC, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

 G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-011

Submitted January 1, 2008 – Filed January
9, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Adam  Fisher, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellants.

Daniel Crawford Patterson, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:[1] Following a thorough review of the briefs
and record in this case, we are unable to find error on the part of the circuit
court in its determination
that Appellants failed to prove Respondent violated the South Carolina Unfair
Trade Practices Act (UTPA), South Carolina Code Section 39-5-20 (Supp. 2006). 
Therefore, we affirm pursuant to the following authorities: Charleston Lumber Co. v. Miller Housing Corp., 318 S.C. 471, 482, 458 S.E.2d 431,
438 (Ct. App. 1995) (“The statute clearly requires that in order to
recover pursuant to the UTPA one must prove each of the following three
elements by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence: 1) a violation
of the Act, 2) proximate cause, and 3) damages.”) and Wayne Smith Const.
Co., Inc. v. Wolman, Duberstein, & Thompson, 294 S.C. 140, 146, 363
S.E.2d 115, 118 (Ct. App. 1987) (“In a law case tried without a jury,
questions regarding the credibility and the weight of evidence are exclusively
for the trial judge.”).  Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON,
SHORT, and WILLIAMS JJ., concur.

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