Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2011-190670 Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-459
07-25-2012
Habersham Atlantic, LLC, Respondent, v. Firstar Homes, Inc., Appellant.
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.
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.
Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge
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 affirm 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.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.