Habersham Atlantic v. Firstar Homes ( 2012 )

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
Habersham Atlantic, LLC, Respondent,
v.
Firstar Homes, Inc., Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-190670
Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-459
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed July 25, 2012
AFFIRMED
Kenneth C. Hanson and Walter M. Riggs, of Hanson
Law Firm, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Ian D. McVey, of Callison Tighe & Robinson, LLC, of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Firstar Homes, Inc. (Firstar) appeals the circuit court's award of
damages to Habersham Atlantic, LLC, (Habersham) arguing the circuit court erred
in finding a provision in Firstar's promissory note to Habersham to be a payment
schedule rather than a condition subsequent. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Holcim (US), Inc. v. AMDG, Inc., 265
Ga.App. 818, 820, 596 S.E.2d 197, 200 (2004) ("[T]he cardinal rule of contract
construction is to ascertain the intent of the parties." (quotation marks omitted));
Brooke v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 113 Ga.App. 742, 744, 149 S.E.2d 511, 513-14
(1966) (stating that in determining intent, "that construction will be favored which
gives meaning and effect to all of the terms of the contract over that which nullifies
and renders meaningless a part of the language therein contained." (internal
quotation marks omitted)); Jones v. Destiny Indus., Inc., 226 Ga.App. 6, 6, 485
S.E.2d 225, 226 (1997) ("A contract should be construed by examining the
agreement in its entirety and not merely isolated clauses and provisions thereof.").
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.