Layne v. Gateway Construction Company, Inc.

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

Steve Layne and
Jody Layne, Appellants,

v.

Gateway
Construction Company, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal From Lexington County

 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-304

Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed June 11,
2008   

AFFIRMED

Brian Pratt Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Claude E. Hardin, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In
this breach of contract action, Steve Layne and Jody Layne (the Laynes) appeal
the trial court’s partial denial of their motion for a new trial nisi remittitur. 
We affirm.[1]

FACTS

The
Laynes hired Gateway Construction Company, Inc., to build a new house pursuant
to a written contract.  After Gateway began construction, the Laynes requested
that Gateway work outside of the contract and amend the construction schedule so
the Laynes could obtain a particular interest rate.  The Laynes requested a
lien release from Gateway as required for the closing.  Gateway issued a
conditional lien release stating $50,711.00 remained due on the project through
July 25, 2003.  After the closing, the Laynes failed to pay as set forth
in the conditional lien release.  Gateway, therefore, ceased construction on
the project.  The Laynes subsequently brought this action against Gateway for
breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act,
negligence, breach of warranty, and violation of the South Carolina Unfair
Trade Practices Act.  Gateway answered and counterclaimed, alleging breach of
contract.

At
trial, Andrew Guliano, Gateway’s president, testified Gateway’s damages totaled
$108,380, including the contract balance of $50,711, $21,073.50 in other
damages, and $36,595.50 in interest.  Gateway reduced the total by $9,000 in
retainage fees.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Gateway in the
amount of $99,380.  The Laynes moved for a new trial nisi remittitur,
arguing the jury awarded compound interest and the verdict included a double
recovery of damages.  The trial court granted the Laynes’ motion as to the
issue of compound interest and reduced the damages to $92,933.99.  The Laynes
again moved to alter or amend the judgment because the trial court’s order did
not address the double recovery of damages issue, and the trial court denied
the motion.  The Laynes appeal.   

LAW / ANALYSIS

The
Laynes argue the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial nisi remittitur to the extent that the damages included a double recovery. 
Specifically, the Laynes argue the $21,073.50 Gateway claimed as “other
damages” was also included in the contract balance of $50,711.00.  

In a breach of contract action, the measure of damages is the loss actually suffered as the result of
the breach.  Collins Holding Corp. v. Landrum, 360 S.C. 346, 350, 601
S.E.2d 332, 333 (2004).  The amount of damages remains largely within the
discretion of the finder of fact, as reviewed by the trial judge.  Mishoe v.
QHG of Lake City, Inc., 366 S.C. 195, 201, 621 S.E.2d 363,
366 (Ct. App. 2005).  A motion for new trial nisi remittitur asks the trial court to reduce the verdict because the verdict is merely excessive.
 See O’Neal v. Bowles, 314 S.C. 525, 527, 431 S.E.2d 555,
556 (1993).  The denial of a motion for a new trial nisi is within the trial court’s discretion and
will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.  Id.  An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either
lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law. State v.
McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000).

Here, evidence
supports the trial court’s partial denial of the Layne’s motion for a remittitur. 
The damages awarded by the jury were within the range of evidence presented at
trial.  Guliano stated he
used Gateway’s general ledger to calculate the total cost and damages
attributed to the project.   He testified Gateway’s damages totaled $99,380.  In
addition, Gateway introduced an exhibit demonstrating that costs, labor, and
interest totaled $99,380. 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT and
KONDUROS, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.

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