Wachesaw Plantation E. Cmty. Servs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Alexander, Appellate Case No. 2012-213400

• Decision Date: 04 November 2015
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 27585,Appellate Case No. 2012-213400
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: Wachesaw Plantation East Community Services Association, Inc., Respondent, v. Todd C. Alexander, Petitioner.

Wachesaw Plantation East Community Services
Association, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Todd C. Alexander, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213400
Opinion No. 27585

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Heard November 19, 2014
November 4, 2015

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Georgetown County
The Honorable Joe M. Crosby, Master-in-Equity

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Charles T. Smith, of Georgetown, for Petitioner.

Hal LaVaughn Beverly, Jr., of McCabe, Trotter & Beverly, P.C., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Jack M. Scoville, Jr., of Law Offices of Jack M. Scoville, Jr., P.A., of Georgetown, for Third-Party Bidder William George.

Page 2

JUSTICE BEATTY: This action arose out of the foreclosure of a lien for delinquent homeowner regime fees against Todd C. Alexander. Alexander did not appeal the foreclosure; however, he moved to vacate the resulting sale. Alexander's motion to vacate the sale was denied and Alexander appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding Alexander failed to comply with section 18-9-170¹ of the South Carolina Code to stay the sale and, therefore, the master-in-equity's issuance of the deed rendered the appeal moot.

I. Facts

Alexander purchased a home for his elderly father in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. After his father was released from a second hospitalization, he did not return to the house. Alexander neglected to pay the regime fees on the home and subsequently the homeowners' association's attorney informed him that a lien had been placed against the house.

The homeowners' association initiated a foreclosure action and served a summons, complaint and lis pendens on Alexander. He signed the certified receipt acknowledging that he received the documents. However, he never responded to the complaint, which led to a default. He was subsequently served with notice of the hearing, affidavit of default, and the order of default at the same address. He made no appearance and filed no appeal.

Page 3

The homeowners' association properly proceeded to have the home auctioned off to the highest bidder at a foreclosure sale. Jerry Callahan, William George's authorized agent, was the highest bidder. By Report and Judgment of Foreclosure Sale filed on April 29, 2011, the master-in-equity sold the property but did not issue the deed.

Alexander, who lives in Pennsylvania, employed a property management company to inspect the house bi-weekly and maintain the property and grounds during the two years that the house had been vacant after his father moved out. In June 2011, while he was hospitalized², he learned from the property management company that the home had a new owner. He then asked a friend to bring his mail to the hospital. He alleges he first received notice of the foreclosure action and sale at that time.

He immediately tendered the regime fee payment in full to the homeowners' association's attorneys but they declined to accept it because of potential liability to the third-party bidder. Alexander then filed a motion to vacate the sale. In his memorandum in support of the motion, Alexander argued four grounds: (1) the sale price was inadequate and the sale was accompanied by other facts warranting the court's interference; (2) the sale should be vacated to avoid forfeiture; (3) the sale should be vacated to avoid the third-party bidder's unjust enrichment; and (4) he timely redeemed the property.

The master-in-equity denied the motion for several reasons. He found that Alexander failed to allege improper service, lack of notice, lack of jurisdiction, excusable neglect and offered no reason for not sending a check once he received the summons and complaint. Moreover, the master-in-equity found Alexander's failure to appeal the Decree of Foreclosure waived his equity-of-redemption rights.

The master-in-equity then issued the deed to Callahan, as agent for George, and it was duly recorded. Alexander timely filed and served a Notice of Appeal from the master's order denying his motion. George filed and served a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issue appealed is moot because the foreclosure sale was finalized before Alexander filed and served his appeal.

The Court of Appeals agreed with George in its order of dismissal. It concluded that Alexander failed to stay the foreclosure sale because he did not

Page 4

comply with section 18-9-170 and the appeal is now moot because the master-inequity properly issued the deed. This Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.

II. Issue Presented

Does the subsequent issuance of a deed moot a timely appealed order denying a motion to vacate the sale of foreclosed property?

III. Discussion

A. Mootness

"A case is moot where a judgment rendered by the Court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the Court." S.C. Ret. Syst. Inv. Comm'n v. Loftis, 402 S.C. 382, 384, 741 S.E.2d 757, 758 (2013). "[M]oot appeals result when intervening events prevent a decision on appeal from having an immediate impact on the parties." 15 S.C. Jur. Appeal and Error § 19 (Supp. 2014). "Appellate court[s] will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual controversy." Linda Mc Co., Inc. v. Shore, 390 S.C. 543, 558, 703 S.E.2d 499, 506 (2010).

"In the civil context, there are three general exceptions to the mootness doctrine." Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 568, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001). "First, an appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review." Id. "Second, an appellate court may decide questions of imperative and manifest urgency to establish a rule for future conduct in matters of important public interest." Id. at 568, 549 S.E.2d at 596. "Finally, if a decision by the trial court may affect future events, or...