Filed: Jun. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2015
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . In this civil appeal, John Lucas argues the circuit court erred in finding he failed to prove his claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) fraud, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) wrongful or retaliatory foreclosure. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Jordan v. Holt, 362 S.C. 20
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM . In this civil appeal, John Lucas argues the circuit court erred in finding he failed to prove his claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) fraud, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) wrongful or retaliatory foreclosure. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Jordan v. Holt, 362 S.C. 201..
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
In this civil appeal, John Lucas argues the circuit court erred in finding he failed to prove his claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) fraud, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) wrongful or retaliatory foreclosure. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Jordan v. Holt, 362 S.C. 201, 205, 608 S.E.2d 129, 131 (2005) ("[A] claim of breach of fiduciary duty is an action at law. . . ." (citation omitted)); Moseley v. All Things Possible, Inc., 395 S.C. 492, 495, 719 S.E.2d 656, 658 (2011) ("An action for fraud is an action at law."); Epworth Children's Home v. Beasley, 365 S.C. 157, 164, 616 S.E.2d 710, 714 (2005) ("When reviewing an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the appellate court's jurisdiction is limited to correction of errors at law. The appellate court will not disturb the [circuit court]'s findings of fact as long as they are reasonably supported by the evidence." (citation omitted)).1
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. Lucas's brief cited no authority in support of his wrongful foreclosure claim; therefore, we find this issue abandoned on appeal. See Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 24, 716 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only conclusory.").
