Gambrell v. Smith

• Decision Date: 05 April 2017
• Docket Number: 2017-UP-143
• Parties: Wanda Gambrell, Respondent, v. Christopher A. Smith, Appellant. Appellate No. 2015-000988
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Wanda Gambrell, Respondent,
v.
Christopher A. Smith, Appellant.

Appellate No. 2015-000988

No. 2017-UP-143

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

April 5, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted January 1, 2017

Appeal from Anderson County Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

William Norman Epps, III, of Epps, Nelson, Epps & Perkins, of Anderson, for Appellant.

John S. Nichols, of Bluestein Nichols Thompson & Delgado, LLC, of Columbia; and James Stephen Welch, of McGowan Hood & Felder, LLC, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Christopher A. Smith appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to alter or amend the court's order granting Wanda Gambrell relief in the amount of $20, 000 for breach of contract. On appeal, Smith argues the trial court erred in finding the contract was not void from its inception or void ab initio; alternatively, Smith argues if the contract was not void ab initio and illegal, the trial court erred in finding Smith failed to prove breach of contract with fraudulent intent. Finally, Smith argues the trial court erred in finding Smith failed to demonstrate Gambrell negligently misrepresented material information. We affirm^[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in finding the contract was not void ab initio: Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Court St., LLC, 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255-56 (2006) ("[T]he trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence or unless it clearly appears the findings were influenced or controlled by an error of law."); McCall v. IKON, 380 S.C. 649, 658, 670 S.E.2d 695, 700 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[Q]uestions concerning credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence are exclusively for the trial court."); Rule 52(a), SCRCP ("In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon . . . ."); In re Treatment & Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122, 131, 568 S.E.2d 338, 342 (2002) ("The rule is directorial in nature so 'where a trial court substantially complies with Rule 52(a) and adequately states the basis for the result it reaches, the appellate court should not vacate the trial court's judgment for lack of an explicit or specific factual finding.'" (emphasis removed) (quoting Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 123...