Case Name: MICROCLEAN TECHNOLOGY, Inc., Respondent, v. ENVIROFIX, INC., Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 2015-06-10
Citations: 412 S.C. 608
Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2013-001706; No. 27526
Parties: MICROCLEAN TECHNOLOGY, Inc., Respondent, v. ENVIROFIX, INC., Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 412
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
773 S.E.2d 579
MICROCLEAN TECHNOLOGY, Inc., Respondent, v. ENVIROFIX, INC., Petitioner.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001706.
No. 27526.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard March 18, 2015.
Decided June 10, 2015.
Trudy Hartzog Robertson and Robert Ernest Sumner, IV, both of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, of Charleston, for petitioner.
Terry A. Finger, of Finger & Fraser, PA, of Hilton Head Island, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in MicroClean Technology, Inc. v. EnviroFix, Inc., 404 S.C. 207, 744 S.E.2d 210 (Ct.App.2013). Petitioner argues the court of appeals erred in: (1) reversing the master-in-equity's (the Master) finding that Petitioner provided proper notice of termination of a license agreement; and (2) reversing and remanding Petitioner's claim and delivery action based on the Master's finding that the parties intended a security deposit serve as liquidated damages.
We reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Butler Contracting, Inc. v. Court Street, L.L.C., 369 S.C. 121, 127, 631 S.E.2d 252, 255-56 (2006) ("[T]he trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence or unless it clearly appears the findings were influenced or controlled by an error of law."). We therefore remand to the Master to reinstate his order.
Further, we hereby direct the court of appeals to depublish its opinion and assign the matter an unpublished opinion number. The above opinion shall no longer have any prece-dential effect.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.