Henry v. Tucker, 2007-UP-107

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Parties: Patrick and Vivian Henry Appellants, v. Michael Tucker Respondent.
• Decision Date: 06 March 2007
• Docket Number: 2007-UP-107

Patrick and Vivian Henry Appellants,
v.
Michael Tucker Respondent.

No. 2007-UP-107

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

March 6, 2007

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.

Submitted March 1, 2007

Appeal From Anderson County J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Patrick and Vivian Henry, of Salem, Pro Se, for Appellants.

David J. Brousseau, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Patrick and Vivian Henry appeal the circuit court's order upholding the decision of the magistrate's court. We affirm. ^[1]

FACTS

This matter involves a contract dispute between landowners Patrick and Vivian Henry (hereinafter collectively referred to as Henry”) and landscaper Michael Tucker. As a result of their disagreement, Henry brought suit against Tucker in the Anderson County Magistrate's Court for breach of contract and breach of warranty. Tucker counterclaimed, alleging fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.

In his original decision, the magistrate found Tucker had breached the warranty on his work and awarded Henry $2, 694.00 in damages. However, the court found Henry had attempted to rely on his own oral modifications to the original contract, and based upon that, as well as the equitable theory of unjust enrichment, found Tucker was entitled to damages from Henry in the amount of $2, 612.00. The magistrate found Tucker suffered additional damages of $82.00 as a result of delays Henry had caused. This ultimately resulted in what the magistrate referred to as a wash, ” with neither party owing further compensation to the other.

After the magistrate rendered his decision, Tucker asked that the court reconsider its decision. Although never phrasing his request as a Motion for Reconsideration, ” Tucker stated: May I just bring a point, your Honor, just by way of the Court's ruling, ” and noted that although the court found Henry caused the project to be delayed, the magistrate failed to adequately assess the damages caused by the delays. Henry filed a written motion to reconsider, arguing the court had not properly considered the damages caused by Tucker's failure to adhere to the contract's requirements. After holding a hearing on these issues, the court agreed with both movants, and the relevant damages were reassessed. However, the ultimate result was the same, with neither party receiving a monetary award as a result of set-off.

Henry appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court judge affirmed the magistrate's decision.

DISCUSSION

The standard of review to be applied by a circuit court in an appeal from a magistrate's judgment is prescribed by the South Carolina Code:

Upon hearing the appeal the appellate court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects which do not affect the merits. In giving judgment the court may affirm or reverse the judgment of the court below, in whole or in part, as to any or all the parties and for errors of law or fact

S.C. Code Ann. § 18-7-170 (1985). This standard, and the standard applicable to this court when reviewing the circuit court's decision, were discussed extensively in Hadfield v. Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88, 92-94, 538 S.E.2d 268, 270-71 (Ct. App. 2000):

In Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 315 S.E.2d 179 (Ct.App.1984), this Court amplified:

As is readily apparent,

...