Habersham Atlantic v. Firstar Homes

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-459 Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed July 25, 2012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.