21ST Mortg. Corp. v. Youmans, Appellate Case No. 2013-001844

Decision Date04 March 2015
Docket NumberAppellate Case No. 2013-001844,Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-112
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
Parties21st Mortgage Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert Youmans and Tonya Stoney, Respondents.

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.

Appeal From Allendale County

Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Thomas E. Lydon, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Mark Brandon Tinsley, of Gooding & Gooding PA, of Allendale; and Robert Norris Hill, of Law Office of Robert Hill, of Lexington, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In this action for claim and delivery of a mobile home, 21st Mortgage Corporation appeals the circuit court's granting of summary judgment to Robert Youmans and Tonya Stoney (Respondents), arguing the court erred infinding: (1) 21st Mortgage was bound by a default judgment that Respondents obtained against the dealer who sold them the mobile home and financed the purchase, (2) 21st Mortgage had notice of the default judgment when it acquired the note securing the transaction, and (3) 21st Mortgage was subject to punitive damages and attorney's fees awarded against the dealer who defaulted in the prior lawsuit. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether 21st Mortgage was bound by the default judgment: Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 339, 611 S.E.2d 485, 487-88 (2005) (stating the appellant has the burden of providing a sufficient record upon which the appellate court can make its decision); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 625, 576 S.E.2d 156, 163 (2003) ("A due process claim raised for the first time on appeal is not preserved."); Allegro, Inc. v. Scully, 409 S.C. 392, 411, 762 S.E.2d 54, 64 (Ct. App. 2014) (finding certain issues were unpreserved for appellate review because there was nothing in the record on appeal indicating the objections at trial included arguments on those issues).

2. As to 21st Mortgage's allegation that record notice of the default judgment against a prior holder of the note was insufficient under subsection 37-2-404(2) of the South Carolina Code (2015): Am. Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. White, 296 S.C. 165, 171, 370 S.E.2d 923, 927 (Ct. App. 1988) ("Section 37-2-404 limits the extent of the defense White may assert against American to the amount owing to American at the time of written notice." (emphasis added)). We further agree with Respondents that the court never ruled that the 2004 default judgment satisfied the notice requirement of subsection 37-2-404(2); rather, in stating "all the world was on notice" about the judgment, the court was merely observing that 21st Mortgage could have discovered the judgment...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT