21ST Mortg. Corp. v. Youmans, Appellate Case No. 2013-001844
Decision Date | 04 March 2015 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2013-001844,Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-112 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | 21st 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.
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. In this action for claim and delivery of a mobile home, 21st 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) ( ); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 625, 576 S.E.2d 156, 163 (2003) (); Allegro, Inc. v. Scully, 409 S.C. 392, 411, 762 S.E.2d 54, 64 (Ct. App. 2014) ( ).
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) . 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