Opinion ID: 2508218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the master-in-equity's judgment in favor of respondent?

Text: Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the master's judgment in favor of respondent on its claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and in denying petitioner relief on her counterclaim for breach of contract. We find petitioner's arguments are unreviewable. Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case. Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) (citing Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522, 525, 476 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1996)). On appeal to the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued the master erred in granting judgment in favor of respondent for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed the master pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, finding the master properly granted judgment in favor of respondent. Petitioner did not appeal all grounds on which the master's judgment was based. Namely, she did not challenge the determination that respondent was entitled to recover based on unjust enrichment. Thus, under the two-issue rule, the Court of Appeals should have declined to address the merits of petitioner's argument since petitioner failed to challenge all three grounds on which the master's judgment was based. [1] See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 692 S.E.2d 900 (2010) (Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become the law of the case.). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.