Regions Bank v. Strawn
| Decision Date | 22 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5027 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Regions Bank, Appellant, v. Richard C. Strawn, Robert K. Borchers, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Marie Borchers, and Nancy Davidson Borchers, Respondents. |
Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Harold P. Threlkeld, of Anderson, for Appellant.
Samantha Nelson Murphy, of Anderson, for Respondents.
Regions Bank (the Bank) appeals the trial court's award of damages to subsequent purchasers of real property (the Property) under section 29-3-320 of the South Carolina Code (2007) for the Bank's failure to mark satisfied a mortgage on the Property. We affirm.
Richard Strawn owned the Property, which was located in Anderson, South Carolina. He gave the Bank a home equity mortgage (the Mortgage) on the Property to secure a credit line of $50,000. The mortgage provided that it would be "governed by and interpreted in accordance with federal law and the laws of the State of South Carolina." On December 12, 2001, he deeded the Property to his wife at the time, Cammie Strawn. On October 31, 2003, Marie Borchers purchased the Property from Cammie through a cash sale. On the day of the closing of the sale, James Belk, the closing attorney for the sale, had one of his employees, Cathy Slaton Curtis, hand deliver a trust account check to the Bank for the payoff amount on the Mortgage. The check had the words "Payoff of first Mortgage" typed on the check. The Bank processed the check but did not mark the Mortgage as satisfied. Several weeks later, the Bank issued Strawn a new set of checks for the line of credit. He used the checks, resulting in a debt of $72,787.95 including interest and penalties.
On December 22, 2005, Belk executed a mortgage lien satisfaction affidavit after the Bank's attorney informed him the Mortgage had not been satisfied. On March 1, 2006, the Bank instituted an action against Strawn for the collection of the debt and a foreclosure action against Robert K. Borchers, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Marie Borchers, and Nancy Davidson Borchers (collectively the Borchers).1 The Borchers filed an answer and counterclaim against the Bank, a crossclaim against Strawn, and a third-party complaint against Belk. As to the counterclaim against the Bank, the Borchers sought the statutory penalties set forth in section 29-3-320 of the South Carolina Code for failure to satisfy the mortgage within ninety days.
On August 20, 2008, the circuit court granted summary judgment to the Borchers as to the Bank's foreclosure action, finding the Bank was estopped from foreclosing on the Property because the Bank should have processed the check as a payoff instead of a paydown on Strawn's line of credit and should have had the Mortgage satisfied as of record.
In March 2010, a nonjury trial was held on the Borchers' counterclaim against the Bank. At trial, Belk testified that as part of the closing, a transmittal letter was prepared, stating the trust account check was enclosed as final payment of the loan. The letter further stated, "PLEASE FORWARD SATISFIED DOCUMENTS (with a copy of this letter) TO THIS OFFICE TO BE REMOVED OF RECORD." Curtis testified that she was involved in the payoff for this closing. She testified that when she was handling a payoff, she would take the check, the payoff letter, and the payoff statement that comes from the bank and staple all three of them together, so they would not get separated in case there were multiple payoffs at the same bank at one time. She then would go to the bank and give them the packet, and she would get the bottom part of the check once it had been run through the bank's machine to show the date and time the payoff was made and a receipt. Curtis had sworn an affidavit on April 14, 2008, she had taken the letter to Bank.
Pamela H. Harbin, a former employee of the Bank, testified she researched the Bank's records to determine what it received with the payoff check. She testified she had seen no evidence the Bank had received the letter. She also provided that if the Bank had received the letter, it would have followed the instructions in the letter and would have probably contacted Strawn to ask if he wanted the equity line cancelled.
The trial court found the testimony conflicted as to whether or not the Bank received notice of the request to satisfy the Mortgage. It found the Bank's review of its records, which occurred more than two years after the closing date, was remote, making it just as likely the document was lost as it was never received. It noted Belk and Curtis's testimonies were clear that for a local bank, like the Bank, their standard practice was to personally deliver a payoff letter with the payoff check, which specifically requested theMortgage be satisfied within three months, and Curtis believed she did so in this instance. The court found that testimony to be credible. The court determined the Bank violated section 29-3-310 of the South Carolina Code, making it subject to the penalty under section 29-3-320 of the South Carolina Code and awarded the Borchers $25,000 and attorney's fees and costs from the Bank. This appeal followed.
On appeal of an action at law tried without a jury, we will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless no evidence reasonably supports the findings. Townes Assocs. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976). Additionally, the appellate court can correct errors of law. Okatie River, L.L.C. v. Se. Site Prep, L.L.C., 353 S.C. 327, 334, 577 S.E.2d 468, 472 (Ct. App. 2003). The trial court's findings in a law action are equivalent to a jury's findings. Chapman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 263 S.C. 565, 567, 211 S.E.2d 876, 877 (1975). Questions regarding credibility and the weight of the evidence are exclusively for the trial court. Sheek v. Crimestoppers Alarm Sys., 297 S.C. 375, 377, 377 S.E.2d 132, 133 (Ct. App. 1989). "We may not consider the case based on our view of the preponderance of the evidence, but must construe the evidence presented to the [trial court] so as to support [its] decision wherever reasonably possible." Id. "We must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the respondents and eliminate from consideration all evidence to the contrary."
The Bank argues because the Mortgage was timely cancelled as required by section 29-3-310 of the South Carolina Code (2007), the trial court erred in ruling the Bank failed to timely satisfy the Mortgage. We disagree.
Section 29-3-310 provides:
Any holder of record of a mortgage who has received full payment or satisfaction or to whom a legal tender has been made of his debts, damages, costs, and charges secured by mortgage of real estate shall, at the request by certified mail or other form of delivery with a proof of delivery of the mortgagor or of his legal representative or any other person being a creditor of the debtor or a purchaser under him or having an interest in any estate bound by the mortgage and on tender of the fees of office for entering satisfaction, within three months after the certified mail, or other form of delivery, with a proof of delivery, request is made, enter satisfaction in the proper office on the mortgage which shall forever thereafter discharge and satisfy the mortgage.
Section 29-3-320 of the South Carolina Code (2007) addresses the liability for failure to enter satisfaction. It states:
To trigger the penalty and related relief provided in section 29-3-320, section 29-3-310 requires the mortgagor or purchaser under him to establish (1) he has made full payment of his debts, including any applicable damages, costs, and charges; (2) he has made a request by certified mail or other form of delivery with a proof of delivery the mortgage be satisfied of record; (3) he has made a tender of fees of office for entering satisfaction; and (4) the mortgagee has failed to enter satisfaction in the proper office on the mortgage within three months of the request. Dykeman v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 381 S.C. 333, 340, 673 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial