The Shops at Wescott, LLC v. Sake House IV, Inc. ( 2023 )

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
The Shops at Wescott, LLC, Respondent,
v.
Sake House IV, Inc. d/b/a Sake House, and Lei Jiang,
Appellants.
Appellate Case No. 2022-000077
Appeal From Dorchester County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-374
Submitted November 9, 2023 – Filed November 22, 2023
AFFIRMED
Evan Adam Smith, of Evan Smith Law Firm, LLC, of
Mount Pleasant, for Appellants.
Adam Mlynarczyk, C. Brandon Belger, and William
Mark Koontz, all of Koontz Mlynarczyk, LLC, of North
Charleston; and Ryan Alexander Love, of Charleston, all
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Sake House IV, Inc. d/b/a Sake House and Lei Jiang
(collectively, Appellants) appeal an order from the trial court. On appeal,
Appellants argue the trial court erred by finding Appellants (1) had total liability
for breach of contract because The Shops at Wescott, LLC (The Shops) failed to
meet its burden of proof regarding mitigation of damages and (2) were liable for
actual damages related to conversion because The Shops failed to meet its burden
of proof regarding conversion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
We hold the trial court's finding that The Shops "properly mitigated its damages
through its attempt to re-lease the Property" was reasonably supported by the
evidence. Brian Aiken, one of the managing members of The Shops, testified he
tried to re-lease the space "in a number of ways," including preparing marketing
material and distributing it to the brokerage community, adding the listing to
Multiple Listing Service, and reaching out to commercial brokers that specialized
in restaurateurs. Appellants failed to present any evidence to support their
contention that The Shops' actions to rent the property were inadequate or
improper, and thus, Appellants failed to sustain their burden of proving The Shops
failed to mitigate damages. See McCall v. IKON, 380 S.C. 649, 658, 670 S.E.2d
695, 700 (Ct. App. 2008) ("On appeal of an action at law tried without a jury, the
findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed unless found to be without
evidence which reasonably supports the trial court's findings."); id. ("Stated
another way, the 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." (quoting Butler Contracting, Inc. v.
Ct. St., LLC, 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255 (2006))); id. ("In such a case,
the trial court's findings are equivalent to a jury's findings in a law action. Further,
questions concerning credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence are
exclusively for the trial court." (citation omitted)); Baril v. Aiken Reg'l Med. Ctrs.,
352 S.C. 271, 285, 573 S.E.2d 830, 838 (Ct. App. 2002) ("A party injured by the
acts of another is required to do those things a person of ordinary prudence would
do under the circumstances, but the law does not require him to exert himself
unreasonably or incur substantial expense to avoid damages."); Moore v. Moore,
360 S.C. 241, 262, 599 S.E.2d 467, 478 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Moreover, the party who
claims damages should have been minimized has the burden of proving they could
reasonably have been avoided or reduced." (quoting Chastain v. Owens Carolina,
Inc., 310 S.C. 417, 420, 426 S.E.2d 834, 835 (Ct. App. 1993))); Genovese v.
Bergeron, 327 S.C. 567, 573, 490 S.E.2d 608, 611 (Ct. App. 1997) ("The tenant
failed to present any evidence showing what types of advertising would have been
reasonable, how much sooner the landlords could have rented or sold the property
through other methods, or that the landlords' actions to rent the property were
inadequate or improper. We conclude, therefore, the tenant failed to sustain her
burden of proving the landlords could have reasonably avoided or reduced their
damages.").
We find the two-issue rule precludes this court's consideration of issue two. The
trial court found Appellants were "jointly and severally liable to [The Shops] for
negligence and conversion in the amount of twenty-two thousand and 00/100
($22,000.00) dollars"; however, Appellants only appealed the conversion ruling in
their appellate brief. Thus, this court finds this issue procedurally barred by the
two-issue rule. See Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C.
323, 328, 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision
is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the
appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become law of
the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010),
abrogated on other grounds by Repko v. Cnty. Of Georgetown, 424 S.C. 494, 818
S.E.2d 743 (2018))); Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR ("Ordinarily, no point will be
considered which is not set forth in the statement of the issues on appeal.").
AFFIRMED. 1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.