Poe v. Stravolo

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

Brannon Poe, CPA, LLC, Respondent,

v.

Steve Stravolo, Stravolo & Company, P.A., and Upstate
CPAs, P.A. f/k/a Mathur & Co., P.A., Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002755

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-202
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed May 11, 2016

AFFIRMED

Scott Franklin Talley, of Talley Law Firm, P.A., of
Spartanburg, for Appellants.

Christy Ford Allen, of Wills Massalon & Allen, LLC, of
Charleston, and Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, of Metcalfe &
Atkinson, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Steve Stravolo, Stravolo & Company, P.A., and Upstate CPAs,
P.A. f/k/a Mathur & Co., P.A. (Upstate) appeal the trial courts' orders granting
Brannon Poe, CPA, LLC (Poe) partial summary judgment on liability and
awarding damages. Appellants argue the trial courts erred in (1) granting partial
summary judgment on liability in favor of Poe; and (2) calculating damages. We
affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment on
liability in favor of Poe because privity of contract did not exist between Poe and
Upstate: Aiken v. World Fin. Corp. of S.C., 373 S.C. 144, 148, 644 S.E.2d 705,
708 (2007) ("In order to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v.
City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 563, 567, 762 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2014) ("Furthermore, a
party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to advance an issue the party could have
raised to the [trial] court prior to judgment, but did not."); Klippel v. Mid-Carolina
Oil, Inc., 303 S.C. 127, 129, 399 S.E.2d 163, 164 (Ct. App. 1990) ("Under Rule 56,
SCRCP, when a party makes a motion for summary judgment and supports it by
affidavits the adverse party may not rest on the allegations of his pleadings but
must respond by affidavits or other evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of
material fact.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in its calculation of damages: Beheler v.
Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 252 S.C. 530, 535, 167 S.E.2d 436, 438 (1969) (stating
the trial court's findings of fact are conclusive upon appeal when supported by
competent evidence in an action at law tried without a jury); Austin v. Specialty
Transp. Servs., Inc., 358 S.C. 298, 310, 594 S.E.2d 867, 873 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The
trial [court] has considerable discretion regarding the amount of damages, both
actual or punitive."); id. ("Because of this discretion, our review on appeal is
limited to the correction of errors of law."); id. at 311, 594 S.E.2d at 873 ("Our task
in reviewing a damages award is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine if
there is any evidence to support the damages award.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, LOCKEMY, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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