Independence Nat'l Bank v. Buncombe Prof'l Park, LLC, Appellate Case No. 2013–000915.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 769 S.E.2d 663,411 S.C. 605 |
| Docket Number | No. 27499.,Appellate Case No. 2013–000915.,27499. |
| Parties | INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. BUNCOMBE PROFESSIONAL PARK, LLC, and David DeCarlis, s/a David D. DeCarlis, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
411 S.C. 605
769 S.E.2d 663
INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner
v.
BUNCOMBE PROFESSIONAL PARK, LLC, and David DeCarlis, s/a David D. DeCarlis, Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2013–000915.
No. 27499.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Feb. 5, 2015.
Decided Feb. 25, 2015.
D. Sean Faulkner, of Greenville, C. Mitchell Brown and Mattison Bogan, both of Columbia, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP., for Petitioner.
Mary Leigh Arnold, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents.
Opinion
Justice PLEICONES.
We granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals' decision in this mortgage priority case. Independence Nat'l Bank v. Buncombe Prof'l Park, LLC, 402 S.C. 514, 741 S.E.2d 572 (Ct.App.2013). We reverse the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstate the master's judgment because we find petitioner Independence National Bank (Bank) is entitled to be equitably subrogated to the original first mortgage on the property.1
FACTS
Respondent DeCarlis is the sole member of respondent Buncombe Professional Park, L.L.C. (Buncombe), which owned an undeveloped parcel of land. In 2007, DeCarlis, as Buncombe's representative, executed a note and mortgage with Bank. At the same time, DeCarlis executed a personal guaranty. As part of this transaction, Bank satisfied the existing first mortgage at closing.
Buncombe ceased paying on the 2007 mortgage. As Bank prepared this foreclosure suit, it learned in 2010 that DeCarlis held what had been, prior to Bank's satisfaction of the original first mortgage, a second mortgage on the property executed and properly recorded in 2006. The same attorney represented both Bank and Buncombe at the 2007 mortgage closing, and had actual notice of DeCarlis' 2006 mortgage at the time of the 2007 closing since he had conducted the title search. The attorney testified at the hearing in this matter that he erroneously neglected to have DeCarlis execute a satisfaction, release, or subordination of his 2006 mortgage at the 2007 closing in order to effectuate the parties' agreement that Bank was to have a first mortgage. Since no such document was executed, DeCarlis' 2006 second mortgage became the first lien, with priority over Bank's 2007 mortgage.
Bank brought this foreclosure action against both Buncombe and DeCarlis. The master “reformed” both Bank's
2007 and DeCarlis' 2006 mortgage, subordinating DeCarlis'
mortgage to that of Bank. In a post-trial order following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ArrowPointe Fed. Credit Union v. Bailey, 28129
...of equitable subrogation; and (5) he did not have actual notice of the prior lien. Indep. Nat'l Bank v. Buncombe Prof'l Park, LLC, 411 S.C. 605, 608, 769 S.E.2d 663, 665 (2015). --------- ...
-
Arrowpointe Fed. Credit Union v. Bailey, Appellate Case No. 2018-000230
...the party asserting the doctrine must not have had actual notice of the prior mortgage. Indep. Nat'l Bank v. Buncombe Prof'l Park, LLC , 411 S.C. 605, 608, 769 S.E.2d 663, 665 (2015).Like the doctrine of equitable subrogation, the doctrine of replacement mortgage is an exception to the race......
-
State v. Samuel, Appellate Case No. 2013–000115.
...were not knowing, voluntary, and admissible. During a Jackson v. Denno2 hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the investigators 769 S.E.2d 663involved in Petitioner's case. The trial court ultimately excluded Statement 1 based on its connection to Petitioner's polygraph examination,......