21St Mortgage Corp. v. Youmans

• Decision Date: 04 March 2015
• Docket Number: 2015-UP-112
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: 21st Mortgage Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert Youmans and Tonya Stoney, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2013-001844

21st Mortgage Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert Youmans and Tonya Stoney, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001844

No. 2015-UP-112

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

March 4, 2015

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard December 10, 2014

Appeal From Allendale County Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

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 in finding: (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...