Opinion ID: 1363940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conversion of arbitration award into mechanic's lien

Text: Sentry's amended demand for arbitration included a claim for Payment of the balance due claimant under the contract documents plus damages , based on a wrongful termination , in the amount of $720.000.00. [Emphasis supplied.] The AAA found Sentry's termination to be unwarranted. Its lump sum award is unallocated. The Circuit Court granted Sentry's motion for summary judgment to foreclose its mechanic's lien through this award. MCDC correctly asserts that, under authority of Sea Pines Co. v. Kiawah Island Co., Inc. , 268 S.C. 153, 232 S.E. (2d) 501 (1977), the mechanic's lien statute may not be used as a vehicle for collecting damages for breach of contract. However, reliance upon Sea Pines here is misplaced. Sentry's amended arbitration demand, admittedly, added a claim for damages based on a wrongful termination. MCDC contends that this added claim, coupled with failure of the AAA award to allocate between such damages and money amounts collectible under the mechanic's lien statute, mandates a finding, as a matter of law, that the award included some amount for breach of contract damages. We disagree. Unfortunately, the record is void of any AAA proceedings to indicate what evidence was there presented. We are left, as was the Circuit Court, to a review of the meager record before us in ruling upon MCDC's contention. At the hearing for summary judgment, each party presented an affidavit relative to what claims were represented in the award. These two affidavits constitute the entire record before us on this issue. MCDC's affidavit cites Sentry's amended demand for breach of contract damages but contains no statement that any amounts for such damages were ever submitted to AAA by Sentry. Sentry's affidavit, on the other hand, directly addresses this issue. Paragraph three states that All claims presented to the arbitration panel by Sentry in the proceeding represented by the award dated July 15, 1983, were claims for compensation for work performed on the Mariner's Cay Project. [Emphasis supplied.] Paragraph four then sets out, specifically, the dollar amounts representing claims actually presented to the arbitration panel by Sentry. All amounts were for work performed, none for breach of contract. In short, MCDC's affidavit is merely conclusory. In no way does it contradict the statements in Sentry's affidavit that the amounts claimed were for work performed only. We hold that, on the evidence before it, the Circuit Court ruled correctly that no material fact was in issue and, accordingly, properly granted summary judgment.