In ruling that the Trustee's Sale may proceed under § 363(f)(1), the Court relies on the doctrine of changed conditions or changed circumstances, recognized under South Carolina law, which provides that when such a significant change occurs with regard to the servient property so as to render a covenant valueless to the covenantee and oppressive and unreasonable as to the covenantor, it can be annulled, viewed as unenforceable, and determined ineffective and invalid. Dunlap v. Beaty, 239 S.C. 196, 122 S.E.2d 9, 15 (1961); see also Menne v. Keowee Key Property Owners' Association, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 564, 629 S.E.2d 690, 694 (S.C.App. 2007). Dunlap and Menne further indicate that the use of this doctrine can be affirmative.

In an action for declaratory relief, the burden of proof rests with the party seeking the declaration, and that party must meet its burden by a greater weight or preponderance of the evidence. See Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Singleton, 316 S.C. 5, 10, 446 S.E.2d 417, 421 (1994); see also Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 564, 629 S.E.2d 690, 694 (Ct.App.2006). LAW AND ANALYSIS

Under South Carolina law, a covenant can be annulled, viewed as unenforceable, and determined ineffective and invalid if such a significant change occurs with regard to the servient property so as to render a covenant valueless to the covenantee and oppressive and unreasonable as to the covenantor. Dunlap v. Beatty, 239 S.C. 196, 122 S.E.2d 9, 15 (1961); see also Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 564, 629 S.E.2d 690, 694 (Ct. App. 2007). Dunlap and Menne further indicate the doctrine of changed circumstances may be used to obtain affirmative relief from a covenant.

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support.” Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct.App.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To warrant a reversal based on the admission of evidence, the appellant must show both error and resulting prejudice.”

When a covenant is unambiguous, the restriction should be enforced according to its obvious meaning. See Menne v. Keowee Key Property Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 629 S.E.2d 690, 695 (S.C.Ct.App. 2006). In this case, the term "facilities" is not ambiguous.

"An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." Id. (quoting Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2006)). "The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

"An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." Id. (quoting Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2006)). "The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims."

(quoting Davis v. Traylor, 340 S.C. 150, 157, 530 S.E.2d 385, 388 (Ct. App. 2000))); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2006))); id. at 448, 772 S.E.2d at 552. ("To warrant a reversal based on the admission of evidence, the appellant must show both error and resulting prejudice." (quoting Conway v. Charleston Lincoln Mercury Inc., 363 S.C. 301, 307, 609 S.E.2d 838, 842 (Ct. App. 2005))); id. ("The trial court has wide discretion in determining the relevancy of evidence."); id. ("Evidence is relevant and admissible if it tends to establish or make more or less probable some matter in issue."

" (quoting Davis v. Traylor, 340 S.C. 150, 157, 530 S.E.2d 385, 388 (Ct. App. 2000))); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2006))); id. at 448, 772 S.E.2d at 552. ("To warrant a reversal based on the admission of evidence, the appellant must show both error and resulting prejudice.

We find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence the Saxon loan payment history under the business records exception to hearsay. See Menne v. Keowee Key Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 368 S.C. 557, 568, 629 S.E.2d 690, 696 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court, whose ruling will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."). We find the Saxon loan payment history was relevant in this matter because it tended to establish whether the Dolans remitted sufficient funds to reinstate their mortgage.