Midfirst Bank v. Mahasin K. Bowen Representative for the Estate of Samuel
Decision Date | 28 February 2018 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-001119,Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-096 |
Parties | MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v. Mahasin K. Bowen as Personal Representative for the Estate of Mary Lee Samuel; Mahasin K. Bowen; Cecil Samuel a/k/a Cecil A. Samuel; Charles Samuel, Jr.; Earl Hassan Samuel; Kenneth Kareem Samuel; Kilgore Marketing Solutions d/b/a RSVP Columbia; Tauheedah Maeen; Raymond Samuel a/k/a Shamsud-din Raymond Samuel; South Carolina Attorney General; South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, Defendants, Of whom Mahasin K. Bowen, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Mary Lee Samuel, and individually is the Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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 Richland County
Joseph M. Strickland, Master-in-Equity
AFFIRMED
Leonard R. Jordan, Jr., of Jordan Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant.
William S. Koehler, of Albertelli Law Firm; and Genevieve Speese Johnson, of Brock & Scott, PLLC, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
Mahasin K. Bowen appeals the Master-in-Equity's order granting MidFirst Bank's motion for summary judgment, issuing a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and dismissing her counterclaims with prejudice. Bowen argues (1) enforcement of the judgment of foreclosure and sale should have been stayed during the pendency of her motion to alter or amend; (2) the Master-in-Equity erred by granting summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact existed, including what property the original parties to the mortgage contract intended to include as collateral, the ambiguity of the mortgage and its proper construction, and whether the original parties' failure to list the mobile home as collateral in the mortgage contract resulted from a mutual mistake; (3) the Master-in-Equity erred by accepting MidFirst's affidavit of indebtedness and affidavit of attorney's fees as evidence supporting MidFirst's motion for summary judgment; and (4) the Master-in-Equity erred by issuing a judgment of foreclosure and sale and dismissing Bowen's counterclaims without evaluation when MidFirst did not request this relief in its motion for summary judgment. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to issue one: Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n v. Murray, 419 S.C. 605, 615, 799 S.E.2d 310, 315 (Ct. App. 2017) ; Haselden v. Haselden, 347 S.C. 48, 63, 552 S.E.2d 329, 337 (Ct. App. 2001) (); id. (); id. (); Rule 62(b), SCRCP (); id. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial