From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC v. FS&S Holding, Inc.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 30, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-335   (S.C. Ct. App. May. 30, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-335

05-30-2012

Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC, Appellant, v. FS&S Holding, Inc. and Nationwide Insurance Company, Defendants, Of whom FS&S Holding, Inc. is the Respondent.

Steven L. Smith, of Charleston, for Appellant. Thomas Bailey Smith, of Columbia, for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted May 1, 2012

Appeal from Berkeley County Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge.

Steven L. Smith, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Thomas Bailey Smith, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees to FS&S Holding, Inc. as the prevailing party in this mechanic's lien action, arguing the award was improper because the amount of the award was excessive. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: EFCO Corp. v. Renaissance on Charleston Harbor, LLC, 370 S.C. 612, 621, 635 S.E.2d 922, 926 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The determination of the amount of attorney['s] fees that should be awarded under the mechanic's lien statute is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (footnote omitted)); Keeney's Metal Roofing, Inc. v. Palmieri, 345 S.C. 550, 553, 548 S.E.2d 900, 901 (Ct. App. 2001) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when, inter alia, the trial [court]'s ruling is based upon an error of law."); EFCO, 370 S.C. at 621, 635 S.E.2d at 926 (providing the trial court should consider the following six factors in awarding reasonable attorney's fees: "(1) the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; and (6) customary legal fees for similar services" (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 621, 635 S.E.2d at 927 (holding an award for attorney's fees, on appeal, will be affirmed so long as sufficient evidence in the record supports each factor).

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

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC v. FS&S Holding, Inc.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 30, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-335   (S.C. Ct. App. May. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC v. FS&S Holding, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Swamp Fox Utilities, LLC, Appellant, v. FS&S Holding, Inc. and Nationwide…

Court:THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: May 30, 2012

Citations

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-335   (S.C. Ct. App. May. 30, 2012)