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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals IN RE: Estate of Valerie D'Agostino Nicholls & Crampton, P.A., Appellant, v. Estate of Valerie D'Agostino, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002249

Appeal From Beaufort County Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-366 Submitted May 1, 2016 – Filed July 20, 2016

AFFIRMED

Jay Anthony Mullinax, of Law Office of Jay A.

Mullinax, LLC, of Hilton Head Island, for Appellant.

James Ashley Twombley, of Twenge & Twombley, LLC, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Nicholls & Crampton, P.A., appeals the master-in-equity's order denying its petition for allowance of a claim against the Estate of Valerie D'Agostino. On appeal, Nicholls & Crampton argues the master (1) erred by deciding the case turned on an ambiguity within Nicholls & Crampton's letter of representation to Richard D'Agostino, Valerie's widower; (2) erred by failing to apply North Carolina law to the letter of representation; and (3) would have ruled in Nicholls & Crampton's favor had the master properly applied North Carolina law to the letter of representation. We affirm.1 Nicholls & Crampton failed to appeal the master's ruling that Nicholls & Crampton "[was] estopped and/or barred from now taking the position that Richard D'Agostino contracted with it in his representative capacity." Thus, this ruling is the law of the case. See Rumpf v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 357 S.C. 386, 398, 593 S.E.2d 183, 189 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Any unappealed portion of the [master's ruling] is the law of the case, and must therefore be affirmed."). Because the master's order was based on more than one ground, we affirm the master. See Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, whe[n] 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.").

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.