Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2018-000118 Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-026
01-27-2021
Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc., Appellant, v. Patrick Oden, Suzanne Oden, and Hickory Hill Plantation Community Association, Respondents.
Magalie Arcure Creech, of Finkel Law Firm LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Paul J. Doolittle, of Jekel Law, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents.
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 Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-In-Equity
AFFIRMED
Magalie Arcure Creech, of Finkel Law Firm LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Paul J. Doolittle, of Jekel Law, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: In this civil matter, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (U.S. Bank) appeals the master-in-equity's order denying (1) its motion to substitute U.S. Bank for Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc. (Bayview) as the plaintiff in a prior action pursuant 2 to Rules 17(a) and 25, SCRCP and (2) its motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), SCRCP. We affirm. We find the master did not abuse his discretion in denying U.S. Bank's motion to substitute itself as a party. See Bryant v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 342 S.C. 159, 165, 536 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing that an appellate court will not reverse the master's denial of a motion to substitute absent an abuse of discretion). U.S. Bank moved for substitution over two years after the master dismissed the prior foreclosure action with prejudice. It sought substitution as a plaintiff in an effort to regain the ability to foreclose on the Oden's mortgaged property. The master eliminated that right with a prior order in 2015. Although our rules of civil procedure do not provide a time limitation for the substitution of parties and subsection 25(e) specifically allows for post-judgment substitution, we find the ability to revive an extinguished right of a prior party is not within the purview of Rule 25. See Rule 25(c) ("In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined with the original party."); Bryant, 342 S.C. at 164 n.2, 536 S.E.2d at 382 n.2 ("Rule 25(c) is applicable whe[n] there is a transfer of interest during the pendency of an action . . . ."); Rule 25(e) ("Substitution of parties under the provision of this rule may be made by the trial court either before or after judgment, or pending appeal, by the appellate court."). Therefore, substitution in the instant case would be improper. Even though U.S. Bank, as Bayview's assignee, is entitled to the outstanding debt on the note, Bayview lost the right to seek recovery through foreclosure. Therefore, U.S. Bank has no right to foreclose the mortgaged property. See BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Kinder, 398 S.C. 619, 624, 731 S.E.2d 547, 549 (2012) ("An assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor."). Accordingly, we hold the master properly denied U.S. Bank's motion for substitution of the parties. AFFIRMED. 3 HUFF, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.