THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING�� EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Bank of Greeleyville, Respondent,

v.

Ronnie L. Poston, Appellant.

Appeal From Williamsburg County
�John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-497
Submitted August 1, 2005 � Filed August 22, 2005��

AFFIRMED

W. Duvall Spruill, of Columbia, for Appellant.

James D. Cooper, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� This is an action brought by the Bank of Greeleyville (Bank) against Ronnie L. Poston to collect on a promissory note.� The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the Bank, dismissed Poston�s counterclaim for negligent or willful misrepresentation, and awarded attorney�s fees to the Bank.� On appeal, Poston argues there was sufficient evidence of the Bank�s participation in an alleged check-kiting scheme by another customer to create a jury question.� We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.� The trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of the Bank and dismissed Poston�s counterclaim based on misrepresentation because Poston failed to establish the elements of his claim and failed to prove the Bank had a duty to warn him:� Brown v. Stewart, 348 S.C. 33, 557 S.E.2d 676 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating the elements of negligent misrepresentation); Ardis v. Cox, 314 S.C. 512, 431 S.E.2d 267 (Ct. App. 1993) (listing the situations in which a duty to speak arises); 9 C.J.S. Banks and Banking � 266 (Supp. 2005) (noting a bank has a duty under federal law to protect the confidentiality of its customers� nonpublic personal information).

2.� The trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of the Bank and dismissed Poston�s counterclaim based on � 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as the Restatement approach has not been adopted in this State with respect to the facts of this case:� ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 320 S.C. 143, 463 S.E.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1995) (adopting the Restatement approach only in regard to the scope of a public accountant�s duty to third parties who use and rely on his work), rev�d in part on other grounds, 327 S.C. 238, 489 S.E.2d 470 (1997).

3.� The issue of whether the note was void for fraud and mispresentation:� this presents no error based on the same authorities as in issue one.

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, BEATTY, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

[1]� We affirm this appeal without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.