From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PrimeLending v. Walker

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Oct 9, 2019
Appellate Case No. 2016-002234 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2016-002234 Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-329

10-09-2019

PrimeLending, A PlainsCapital Company, Respondent, v. Ronnell Demar Walker a/k/a Ronnell D. Walker; and South Pointe Homeowners Association, Defendants, Of whom Ronnell Demar Walker a/k/a Ronnell D. Walker is the Appellant.

Ronnell Demar Bey, of Summerville, pro se. Erica Greer Lybrand, of Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, of Columbia, for Respondent.


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 Berkeley County
Dale Edward Van Slambrook, Master-in-Equity

AFFIRMED

Ronnell Demar Bey, of Summerville, pro se. Erica Greer Lybrand, of Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Ronnell Demar Walker appeals the master-in-equity's order of foreclosure and sale. On appeal, Walker, pro se, argues the master erred by (1) 2 granting the foreclosure and sale to PrimeLending, A PlainsCapital Company (PrimeLending) without sufficient validating evidence, (2) violating his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, (3) violating his civil rights by acting under color of authority, and (4) denying him the right to face his accuser. We affirm. 1. As to whether the master erred by granting the foreclosure and sale: Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper, 405 S.C. 214, 219, 746 S.E.2d 478, 480 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Standing refers to a party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right." (omissions by court) (quoting Powell ex rel. Kelley v. Bank of Am., 379 S.C. 437, 444, 665 S.E.2d 237, 241 (Ct. App. 2008))); id. at 220, 746 S.E.2d at 481 ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the litigation to have standing." (quoting Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1, 22, 698 S.E.2d 612, 623 (2010))); S.C. Code Ann. § 36-1-201(b)(21)(a) (Supp. 2018) (stating a holder is "the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable . . . to . . . an identified person that is the person in possession"); S.C. Code Ann. § 36-3-301 (Supp. 2018) (noting the holder of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument); U.S. Bank Trust Nat'l. Ass'n v. Bell, 385 S.C. 364, 374, 684 S.E.2d 199, 204 (Ct. App. 2009) ("A mortgage and a note are separate securities for the same debt, and a mortgagee who has a note and a mortgage to secure a debt has the option to either bring an action on the note or to pursue a foreclosure action."). 2. As to whether the master violated Walker's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law: Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 99, 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Numerous cases have held that where an issue is not argued within the body of the brief but is only a short conclusory statement, it is abandoned on appeal."); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. 3 App. 2006) (providing an issue listed in the statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in briefs is abandoned). 3. As to whether the master violated Walker's civil rights by acting under color of authority: Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [master] to be preserved for appellate review."). 4. As to whether the master erred by allowing PrimeLending's witness to testify over Walker's objection to lack of personal information and by denying his motion to strike: Rule 602, SCRE ("A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony."); McPeters v. Yeargin Const. Co., 290 S.C. 327, 332, 350 S.E.2d 208, 211 (Ct. App. 1986) ("A motion to strike testimony after it has been admitted without objection is addressed to the sound discretion of the [master]."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, WILLIAMS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

PrimeLending v. Walker

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Oct 9, 2019
Appellate Case No. 2016-002234 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019)
Case details for

PrimeLending v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:PrimeLending, A PlainsCapital Company, Respondent, v. Ronnell Demar Walker…

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 9, 2019

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2016-002234 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019)