Opinion ID: 1305032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review

Text: An action to construe a contract is an action at law. Pruitt v. S.C. Med. Malpractice Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass'n, 343 S.C. 335, 339, 540 S.E.2d 843, 845 (2001). In resolving this appeal, we must construe the lease agreement [4] between Cleo and Avery and the Bank. Where a contract is unambiguous, the matter becomes one of law and the parties' intent as clearly set forth in their agreement must be given effect. See McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179, 185, 672 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2009) (Where the contract's language is clear and unambiguous, the language alone determines the contract's force and effect.). Conversely, where a contract is ambiguous, the fact finder must ascertain the parties' intentions from the evidence presented. Charles v. B & B Theatres, Inc., 234 S.C. 15, 18, 106 S.E.2d 455, 456 (1959) ([W]hen the written contract is ambiguous in its terms . . . parol and other extrinsic evidence will be admitted to determine the intent of the parties.). In an action at law, tried without a jury, the trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the court's findings. Stanley v. Atl. Title Ins. Co., 377 S.C. 405, 409, 661 S.E.2d 62, 64 (2008).