Deutsche Bank v. Dooly

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedMay 1, 2019
Docket2019-UP-157
StatusUnpublished

This text of Deutsche Bank v. Dooly (Deutsche Bank v. Dooly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deutsche Bank v. Dooly, (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-W11, Respondent,

v.

Geary Thomas Dooly, Eleanor S. Dooly and United States of America, Defendants,

Of whom Geary Thomas Dooly is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001238

Appeal From Spartanburg County Gordon G. Cooper, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-157 Submitted March 1, 2019 – Filed May 1, 2019

AFFIRMED

Geary Thomas Dooly, of Spartanburg, pro se.

Genevieve Speese Johnson and William Price Stork, both of Brock & Scott, PLLC, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 458, 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) ("Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, a party is precluded from relitigating, after an appeal, matters that were either not raised on appeal, but should have been, or raised on appeal, but expressly rejected by the appellate court."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("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 trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 24, 716 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An issue is deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only conclusory.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Judy v. Martin
674 S.E.2d 151 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2009)
Wilder Corp. v. Wilke
497 S.E.2d 731 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1998)
Potter v. Spartanburg School District 7
716 S.E.2d 123 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Deutsche Bank v. Dooly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deutsche-bank-v-dooly-scctapp-2019.