Iglhaut v. Buggie

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

Ludwig Iglhaut
and Darlene Iglhaut, Respondent,

v.

Fred Buggie, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 S. Jackson Kimball, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-620

Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed
December 22, 2009

AFFIRMED

Fred Buggie, of Lake Wylie, for Appellant.

Daniel D. D'Agostino, of York, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Fred
Buggie appeals the master-in-equity's order awarding Ludwig and Darlene Iglhaut
actual and punitive damages on their fraud claim.  We affirm.

On appeal, Buggie argues the master erred in finding
he made material misrepresentations regarding the condition of a sewage line on
the property he sold to the Iglhauts.  We disagree.  The master's findings of
fraud by Buggie are reasonably supported by evidence in the record.   The
problems with the sewer line were material to the Iglhauts' decision to
purchase the property because the plumber informed Buggie the sewer line was
made of a weak pipe which could collapse if not replaced.  Buggie was aware of
the problems involving his sewer line, but declined to replace the pipe and did
not inform the Iglhauts about the potential hazard to the property if the pipe
was not replaced.  Buggie did not disclose the problem in both his written and
oral representations to the Iglhauts before they purchased the property from
him.  Accordingly, the master correctly ruled that Buggie's actions constituted
fraud.  See Hendricks v. Hicks, 374 S.C. 616, 620, 649 S.E.2d 151,
152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding the court's findings of fact in an action for
fraud will be upheld on appeal when the findings are reasonably supported by
the evidence).         

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 

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