Miller v. Fields

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

Lydia Miller and Doris Knight, Plaintiffs,

Of Whom Lydia Miller is the Respondent,

v.

Willie Fields, Paula White, and The Refurbished Center
Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom Willie Fields is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001154

Appeal From Lexington County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-303
Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed June 15, 2016

AFFIRMED

S. Jahue Moore and John Calvin Bradley, Jr., both of
Moore Taylor Law Firm, P.A., of West Columbia, for
Appellant.

Joshua Koger, Jr., of The Law Offices of Joshua Koger,
Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Willie Fields appeals the trial court's order finding a valid
contract existed between Fields and Lydia Miller and awarding Miller $12,000 in
damages for breach of contract. Fields argues the trial court erred by (1)
determining Miller had standing to pursue this action, (2) awarding Miller damages
for breach of contract to have the home ready for occupancy in August 2011, (3)
finding Miller suffered damages as the result of the alleged breach of contract, (4)
failing to take Fields's damages into consideration in its calculation of damages,
and (5) failing to award Fields damages pursuant to his counterclaim against
Miller.1 We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in determining Miller had standing to pursue
this action: Powell ex rel. Kelley v. Bank of Am., 379 S.C. 437, 444, 665 S.E.2d
237, 241 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Standing refers to '[a] party's right to make a legal
claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right.'" (alteration in original)
(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1413 (7th ed.1999))); id. ("It concerns an
individual's 'sufficient interest in the outcome of the litigation to warrant
consideration of [the person's] position by a court.'" (alteration in original)
(quoting 1A C.J.S. Actions § 101 (2005))); Brock v. Bennett, 313 S.C. 513, 519,
443 S.E.2d 409, 412 (Ct. App. 1994) ("Standing is a fundamental requirement for
instituting an action."); Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 28, 630
S.E.2d 474, 479 (2006) ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the
litigation to have standing."); id. ("A real party in interest is a party with a real,
material, or substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation."); Bank of Am.,
N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 220, 746 S.E.2d 478, 481 (Ct. App. 2013) ("It is
ownership of the right sought to be enforced which qualifies one as a real party in
interest, rather than absolute ownership of specific property." (quoting 4 S.C. Jur.
Action § 23 (1991))).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in awarding Miller damages for breach of
contract or finding Miller suffered damages as the result of the alleged breach of
contract: Temple v. Tec-Fab, Inc., 381 S.C. 597, 599-600, 675 S.E.2d 414, 415
(2009) ("In an action at law tried without a jury, an appellate court's scope of

1
We combined Fields's second and third issues and also his fourth and fifth issues
below.
review extends merely to the correction of errors of law."); id. at 600, 675 S.E.2d
at 415 ("The [c]ourt will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are found
to be without evidence that reasonably supports those findings."); Consignment
Sales, LLC v. Tucker Oil Co., 391 S.C. 266, 271, 705 S.E.2d 73, 76 (Ct. App.
2010) ("In order to recover for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege and prove
(1) the existence of a contract, (2) breach of the contract, and (3) damages caused
by the breach."); Player v. Chandler, 299 S.C. 101, 105, 382 S.E.2d 891, 893
(1989) ("[I]n order to have a valid and enforceable contract, there must be a
meeting of the minds between the parties with regard to all essential and material
terms of the agreement.").

3. As to whether the trial court erred in failing to take Fields's damages into
consideration or to award Fields damages for his counterclaim against Miller:
West v. Newberry Elec. Coop., Inc., 357 S.C. 537, 543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct.
App. 2004) (finding an issue that is neither addressed by the trial court in its final
order nor raised by way of a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion is not preserved for
review).

AFFIRMED.2

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

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.