Garrett v. Hunter

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Garrett v. Hunter

DecidedDecember 21, 2010

Docket2010-UP-555

StatusUnpublished

This text of Garrett v. Hunter (Garrett v. Hunter) 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

Garrett v. Hunter, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

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

John J. Garrett, Appellant,

v.

Richard F. Hunter, Christine E. Hunter, and Jimmy Dean Justice, Respondents.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-555
Submitted December 1, 2010 Filed December 21, 2010

AFFIRMED

John J. Garrett, pro se, of Reidville, for Appellant.

Matthew Elliott Cox, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Richard F. Hunter, of Hickory, North Carolina, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: John J. Garrett appeals the master-in-equity's order finding he lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Richard and Christine Hunter. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Newman v. Richland Cnty. Historic Pres. Comm'n, 325 S.C. 79, 82, 480 S.E.2d 72, 74 (1997) ("Standing is 'a personal stake in the subject matter of a lawsuit.'" (quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 312 S.C. 454, 458, 441 S.E.2d 325, 327 (1994))); Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1318 (D.S.C. 1994) ("South Carolina recognizes the familiar and uncontroverted proposition that the assignment of a note secured by a mortgage carries with it an assignment of the mortgage." (quoting Hahn v. Smith, 157 S.C. 157, 161, 154 S.E. 112, 115 (1930) and Ballou v. Young, 42 S.C. 170, 177, 20 S.E. 84, 86 (1894))); S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Halter, 293 S.C. 121, 128, 359 S.E.2d 74, 77 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The assignment of a mortgage as distinct from the debt it secures is nugatory and confers no rights upon the transferee absent some indication that the parties also intended to transfer the debt." (internal citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, PIEPER, AND GEATHERS, 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

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

John J. Garrett, Appellant,

v.

Richard F. Hunter, Christine E. Hunter, and Jimmy Dean Justice, Respondents.

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-555
Submitted December 1, 2010 Filed December 21, 2010

AFFIRMED

John J. Garrett, pro se, of Reidville, for Appellant.

Matthew Elliott Cox, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Richard F. Hunter, of Hickory, North Carolina, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: John J. Garrett appeals the master-in-equity's order finding he lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Richard and Christine Hunter. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Newman v. Richland Cnty. Historic Pres. Comm'n, 325 S.C. 79, 82, 480 S.E.2d 72, 74 (1997) ("Standing is 'a personal stake in the subject matter of a lawsuit.'" (quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 312 S.C. 454, 458, 441 S.E.2d 325, 327 (1994))); Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1318 (D.S.C. 1994) ("South Carolina recognizes the familiar and uncontroverted proposition that the assignment of a note secured by a mortgage carries with it an assignment of the mortgage." (quoting Hahn v. Smith, 157 S.C. 157, 161, 154 S.E. 112, 115 (1930) and Ballou v. Young, 42 S.C. 170, 177, 20 S.E. 84, 86 (1894))); S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Halter, 293 S.C. 121, 128, 359 S.E.2d 74, 77 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The assignment of a mortgage as distinct from the debt it secures is nugatory and confers no rights upon the transferee absent some indication that the parties also intended to transfer the debt." (internal citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, PIEPER, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Garrett v. Hunter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-hunter-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack