Appellants did not present any evidence demonstrating a change in Developer's position during that short time. See Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id. (requiring the nonmoving party to "come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial"); Shoney's, Inc., 291 S.C. at 314, 353 S.E.2d at 305 (stating the "omission of restrictions in some of the conveyances of lots in a subdivision being developed under a general scheme of restrictions may constitute an abandonment or waiver of the restrictions when considered in connection with other circumstances").

. See Rule 56(e), SCRCP (providing a party challenging a motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial"); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 320, 548 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2001) (providing that Rule 56(e) "requires a party opposing summary judgment to come forward with affidavits or other supporting documents demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial"); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings.");

See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Batson, 345 S.C. 316, 320, 548 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2001) (providing that Rule 56(e) "requires a party opposing summary judgment to come forward with affidavits or other supporting documents demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial"); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings.")

Saffir failed to present specific facts showing Hattie Bennett did not intend to create an easement. See Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id.

Although Homeowners argue they provided evidence of payments, we find it was not enough to refute Nationstar's proof of default. See Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 331 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id. (requiring the non-moving party to "come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial"); Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 477, 744 S.E.2d 161, 166 (2013) ("[I]t is not sufficient for a party to create an inference that is not reasonable or an issue of fact that is not genuine.").

; Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id.

To establish a cause of action for negligence, "a plaintiff must show that the (1) defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2) defendant breached the duty by a negligent act or omission; (3) defendant's breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury; and (4) plaintiff suffered an injury or damages." Schmidt v. Courtney , 357 S.C. 310, 592 S.E.2d 326, 333-34 (App. 2003). "An essential element in a cause of action for negligence is the existence of a legal duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff."

erefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."); Guinan v. Tenet Healthsystems of Hilton Head, Inc., 383 S.C. 48, 54-55, 677 S.E.2d 32, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A party claiming summary judgment is premature because they have not been provided a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery must advance a good reason why the time was insufficient under the facts of the case, and why further discovery would uncover additional relevant evidence and create a genuine issue of material fact."); Melton v. Medtronic, Inc., 389 S.C. 641, 655, 698 S.E.2d 886, 893 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A] patient alleging medical malpractice must provide evidence, through expert testimony, showing (1) the generally recognized and accepted practices and procedures that would be followed by average, competent practitioners in the physician's field of medicine under the same or similar circumstances, and (2) that the physician departed from the recognized and generally accepted standards."); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id. ("Rather, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial."); David v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 250, 626 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2006) ("Regardless of the area in which the prospective expert witness practices, he must set forth the applicable standard of care for the medical procedure under scrutiny and he must demonstrate to the court that he is familiar with the standard of care."); Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, 390 S.C. 275, 289, 701 S.E.2d 742, 749 (2010) (holding a "conclusory statement that Respondents breached the standard of care does not create a genuine issue of material fact"). AFFIRMED.LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

althsystems of Hilton Head, Inc., 383 S.C. 48, 54-55, 677 S.E.2d 32, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A party claiming summary judgment is premature because they have not been provided a full and fair opportunity to conduct discovery must advance a good reason why the time was insufficient under the facts of the case, and why further discovery would uncover additional relevant evidence and create a genuine issue of material fact."); Melton v. Medtronic, Inc., 389 S.C. 641, 655, 698 S.E.2d 886, 893 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A] patient alleging medical malpractice must provide evidence, through expert testimony, showing (1) the generally recognized and accepted practices and procedures that would be followed by average, competent practitioners in the physician's field of medicine under the same or similar circumstances, and (2) that the physician departed from the recognized and generally accepted standards."); Schmidt v. Courtney, 357 S.C. 310, 317, 592 S.E.2d 326, 330 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id. ("Rather, the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial."); David v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242, 250, 626 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2006) ("Regardless of the area in which the prospective expert witness practices, he must set forth the applicable standard of care for the medical procedure under scrutiny and he must demonstrate to the court that he is familiar with the standard of care."); Harris Teeter, Inc. v. Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, 390 S.C. 275, 289, 701 S.E.2d 742, 749 (2010) (holding a "conclusory statement that Respondents breached the standard of care does not create a genuine issue of materi

The non-moving party in a motion for summary judgment must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a fishing expedition." Schmidt v. Courtney , 357 S.C. 310, 322, 592 S.E.2d 326, 333 (Ct. App. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the [summary judgment] motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such order as is just.