O'Berry v. Carthens

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

Eugene O’Berry,
Jr. d/b/a G. O’Berry Painting, Remodeling & Power Washing, Respondent,

v.

Norman
Carthens, Appellant.

Appeal From Barnwell County

 J. Martin Harvey, Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-543

Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed
September 18, 2008 

AFFIRMED

Joshua  Koger, Jr., of North, for Appellant.

Evert  Comer, Jr., of Denmark, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   
We affirm[1] the order of the special referee pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the
following authorities: Butler
Contracting, Inc. v. Court Street, LLC, 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631
S.E.2d 252, 255-56 (2006) (finding the foreclosure of a mechanics’ lien is an action at law.  In an action at law, tried without a jury, an
appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s findings of fact unless they
are wholly unsupported by the evidence or unless it clearly appears the
findings are controlled by an error
of law); West v. Newberry Elec. Co-op.,
357 S.C. 537, 543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding issue that is
neither addressed by trial court in final order nor raised by way of Rule
59(e), SCRCP, motion is not preserved for review).  Further, we grant
the guardian ad litem’s petition to be relieved.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., CURETON and
GOOLSBY, A.J.J. Concur.

[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in
resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.