Coen v. Crowley

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 Richard H. Coen, Coen Capital, LLC, and Lowcountry Capital, LLC, Respondents, v. Dianne Crowley, Cecil Crowley, Steve Carroll, Individually and as Principals and Agents of RedWing, LLC & Wings Over America, Inc.; RedWing, LLC & Wings Over America, Inc., Appeal From Charleston County J.C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-134 Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 29, 2012 AFFIRMED Andrew K. Epting, Jr. and Michelle N. Endemann, both of Charleston, for Appellants. Hugh W. Buyck, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Dianne Crowley, Cecil Crowley, Steve Carroll, individually and as principals and agents of Redwing, LLC and Wings Over America, Inc. (collectively Redwing) appeal the trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed against them by Richard H. Coen, Coen Capital, LLC, and Lowcountry Capital, LLC.[1] We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Aiken v. World Fin. Corp. of S.C., 373 S.C. 144, 148, 644 S.E.2d 705, 707 (2007) ("The determination of whether a claim is subject to arbitration is subject to de novo review. Nevertheless, a [trial] court's factual findings will not be reversed on appeal if any evidence reasonably supports the findings." (citation omitted)); Chassereau v. Global-Sun Pools, Inc., 363 S.C. 628, 632, 611 S.E.2d 305, 307 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Arbitration rests on the agreement of the parties, and the range of issues that can be arbitrated is restricted by the terms of the agreement." (quotation marks omitted)); id. at 633, 611 S.E.2d at 307 ("[A] clause compelling arbitration for any claim 'arising out of or relating to this agreement' may cover disputes outside the agreement, but only if those disputes relate to the subject matter of that agreement." (quotation marks omitted)); Partain v. Upstate Auto. Grp., 386 S.C. 488, 491-92, 689 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2010) ("[W]hen deciding whether an arbitration agreement encompasses a dispute, a court must determine whether the factual allegations underlying the claim are within the scope of the broad arbitration clause."). AFFIRMED. PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] We decline to address Redwing's second issue regarding its motion to stay because the motion to compel arbitration issue is dispositive. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not address appellant's remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive). [2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.