Iglhaut v. Buggie

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 Ludwig Iglhaut and Darlene Iglhaut, Respondent, v. Fred Buggie, Appellant. Appeal From York County S. Jackson Kimball, III, Master-in-Equity Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-620 Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 22, 2009 AFFIRMED Fred Buggie, of Lake Wylie, for Appellant. Daniel D. D'Agostino, of York, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Fred Buggie appeals the master-in-equity's order awarding Ludwig and Darlene Iglhaut actual and punitive damages on their fraud claim. We affirm. On appeal, Buggie argues the master erred in finding he made material misrepresentations regarding the condition of a sewage line on the property he sold to the Iglhauts. We disagree. The master's findings of fraud by Buggie are reasonably supported by evidence in the record. The problems with the sewer line were material to the Iglhauts' decision to purchase the property because the plumber informed Buggie the sewer line was made of a weak pipe which could collapse if not replaced. Buggie was aware of the problems involving his sewer line, but declined to replace the pipe and did not inform the Iglhauts about the potential hazard to the property if the pipe was not replaced. Buggie did not disclose the problem in both his written and oral representations to the Iglhauts before they purchased the property from him. Accordingly, the master correctly ruled that Buggie's actions constituted fraud. See Hendricks v. Hicks, 374 S.C. 616, 620, 649 S.E.2d 151, 152 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding the court's findings of fact in an action for fraud will be upheld on appeal when the findings are reasonably supported by the evidence). AFFIRMED.[1] HUFF, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.