English v. Sexton

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
John M. English, Appellant,
v.
Ellen Sexton and John E. White, Jr., Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002661
Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-202
Submitted March 1, 2017 – Filed May 17, 2017
AFFIRMED
Steven L. Smith, of Smith Closser, of Charleston, for
Appellant.
G. Thomas Hill, of Hill & Hill, LLC, of Ravenel, for
Respondent Ellen Sexton.
John E. White, Jr., of White Law Firm, of North
Charleston, pro se.
PER CURIAM: John M. English appeals a final order from a master-in-equity,
arguing the master erred in construing an arbitrator's order to find he owed Ellen
Sexton $19,626.80 for a Ford Explorer and failing to defer resolution of a fee
dispute with his former counsel, John E. White, Jr., to the Resolution of Fee
Disputes Board (the Board). We affirm.1
1. We find the master did not err in interpreting the arbitrator's order as ordering
English to reimburse Sexton the funds Sexton expended for the Ford Explorer. See
Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC v. Gilleland-Prince, 412 S.C. 554, 562-63, 772 S.E.2d
882, 887 (Ct. App. 2015) ("When reviewing a master-in-equity's judgment made in
an action at law, 'the appellate court will not disturb the master's findings of fact
unless the findings are found to be without evidence reasonably supporting them.'"
(quoting Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 590, 658 S.E.2d 539,
542 (Ct. App. 2008))).
2. We find the master did not err in failing to defer resolution of the fee dispute to
the Board because the uncontested evidence showed the fees addressed by the
master's order were different than the fees involved in the dispute pending before
the Board. See Bluffton Towne Ctr., LLC, 412 S.C. at 562-63, 772 S.E.2d at 887
("When reviewing a master-in-equity's judgment made in an action at law, 'the
appellate court will not disturb the master's findings of fact unless the findings are
found to be without evidence reasonably supporting them.'" (quoting Silver, 376
S.C. at 590, 658 S.E.2d at 542). To the extent English argues he was not given
proper notice of the hearing on his motion to reconsider, English's counsel did not
move for a continuance at the hearing and appears to have otherwise agreed to the
hearing date. See Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 102, 594 S.E.2d 485, 498
(Ct. App. 2004) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be
preserved for appellate review." (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C.
406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000))).
AFFIRMED.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.