Mortgage Recovery Fund-Riverbend, Ltd. v. Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, FUND--RIVERBEN

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHEARN
Citation327 S.C. 491,489 S.E.2d 655
PartiesMORTGAGE RECOVERY, Respondent, v. HERITAGE CLIPPER RIVERBEND TRUST, Stephen M. Chapman, BVH Partners, Bank of New England, N.A., Town & Campus International, Inc., Sentry Management Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, and Sentry Management Corporation, a New Hampshire Corporation, of whom Sentry Management Corporation, a New Hampshire Corporation is the Appellant.
Decision Date30 June 1997
Docket NumberFUND--RIVERBEN,No. 2688,LTD

Page 655

489 S.E.2d 655
327 S.C. 491
MORTGAGE RECOVERY FUND--RIVERBEND, LTD., Respondent,
v.
HERITAGE CLIPPER RIVERBEND TRUST, Stephen M. Chapman, BVH
Partners, Bank of New England, N.A., Town & Campus
International, Inc., Sentry Management Corporation, a
Massachusetts Corporation, and Sentry Management
Corporation, a New Hampshire Corporation,
of whom Sentry Management Corporation, a New Hampshire
Corporation is the Appellant.
No. 2688.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted May 6, 1997.
Decided June 30, 1997.

[327 S.C. 492] Michael S. Church, of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for appellant.

Edward D. Barnhill, Jr., of Morris, Morris & Barnhill, Columbia, for respondent.

HEARN, Judge:

Mortgage Recovery Fund (MRF) originally brought this mortgage foreclosure action against the owners of certain real property located in Lexington County, South Carolina. MRF later amended its complaint and added a cause of action against Sentry Management Corporation (Sentry). Sentry appeals from the order of the master-in-equity denying its motion to transfer the case to the jury roster. We reverse.

Facts

MRF filed this mortgage foreclosure action in March 1994 in connection with the mortgage default of an apartment complex. MRF sought reformation of the commercial mortgage, the appointment of a receiver, and foreclosure of the mortgage. A receiver was appointed on April 22, 1994 and given possession of the apartment complex. By consent of the parties, the case was referred with finality to the Lexington County Master-in-Equity in July 1994.

Page 656

[327 S.C. 493] In December 1994, MRF amended its complaint to add a cause of action against Sentry. In the amended complaint, MRF alleges that for a period of time Sentry was managing agent for the defendants Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, Stephen M. Chapman, and BVH Partners. During this time, MRF alleges Sentry received excessive management fees in the amount of $400,000 while the loan was in default. In the prayer for relief, the only relief requested in connection with Sentry is "a money judgment against the Defendants, Sentry Management Corporation, jointly and severally."

In December 1995, Sentry filed a motion to transfer the case to the jury docket. The master denied the motion, finding that MRF's main purpose in bringing the action was equitable.

Discussion

Sentry argues the master erred in denying its motion to transfer the case to the jury docket because the only cause of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • RIM ASSOCIATES v. Blackwell, No. 3747.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 February 2004
    ...or in equity is determined by the main purpose of the suit. Mortgage Recovery Fund-Riverbend, Ltd. v. Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, 327 S.C. 491, 493, 489 S.E.2d 655, 656 (Ct.App.1997) (citing Baughman v. AT & T, 298 S.C. 127, 130, 378 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1989)). The court should determine......
  • Rim Associates v. Blackwell, Opinion No. 3747 (SC 5/14/2004), Opinion No. 3747.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 May 2004
    ...or in equity is determined by the main purpose of the suit. Mortgage Recovery Fund-Riverbend, Ltd. v. Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, 327 S.C. 491, 493, 489 S.E.2d 655, 656 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing Baughman v. AT&T, 298 S.C. 127, 130, 378 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1989)). The court should determine......
2 cases
  • RIM ASSOCIATES v. Blackwell, No. 3747.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 February 2004
    ...or in equity is determined by the main purpose of the suit. Mortgage Recovery Fund-Riverbend, Ltd. v. Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, 327 S.C. 491, 493, 489 S.E.2d 655, 656 (Ct.App.1997) (citing Baughman v. AT & T, 298 S.C. 127, 130, 378 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1989)). The court should determine......
  • Rim Associates v. Blackwell, Opinion No. 3747 (SC 5/14/2004), Opinion No. 3747.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 May 2004
    ...or in equity is determined by the main purpose of the suit. Mortgage Recovery Fund-Riverbend, Ltd. v. Heritage Clipper Riverbend Trust, 327 S.C. 491, 493, 489 S.E.2d 655, 656 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing Baughman v. AT&T, 298 S.C. 127, 130, 378 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1989)). The court should determine......

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