Ravenel v. Equivest Financial, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 23, 2013
• Docket: 2013-UP-495
• Status: Unpublished

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

Lashanda Ravenel and Henry Lee Ravenel, II, Appellants,

v.

Equivest Financial, LLC, Respondent,

Mary M. Scarborough, Delinquent Tax Collector for Charleston County; AAA Plumbing, LLC; Pep Boys, Manny, Moe and Jack; Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia; Discover Bank; SC Federal Credit Union; Alabama Credit Corp. d/b/a Preferred Teachers Association, Cross-Defendants.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212772

Appeal From Charleston County The Honorable Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-495 Heard November 12, 2013 – Filed December 23, 2013

AFFIRMED Barry I. Baker and Benjamin Goldberg, both of Charleston, for Appellants.

Steven R. Anderson, of Law Office of Steven R. Anderson, and James B. Richardson, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this action to void a tax sale, Lashanda Ravenel and Henry Lee Ravenel, II, (Appellants) appeal from the Master-in-Equity's order quieting title in favor of Equivest Financial, LLC, a subsequent purchaser. Appellants argue the Master erred in the following: (1) failing to find the delinquent tax collector for Charleston County did not exercise due diligence when certified mailings were returned unsigned; (2) interjecting issues that were neither pled nor raised by the parties; (3) finding Appellants' predecessor-in-interest committed fraud upon her creditors, had unclean hands, and was judicially estopped from her assertions based on a bankruptcy proceeding; and (4) imputing the predecessor-in- interest's purported fraud to Appellants. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to the Master's finding the predecessor-in-interest failed to deliver the deeds to Appellants: Rule 220(c), SCACR (providing this court may affirm on any ground appearing in the record); Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329, 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case."); Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 28, 630 S.E.2d 474, 479 (2006) ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to the litigation to have standing."); Donnan v. Mariner, 339 S.C. 621, 626, 529 S.E.2d 754, 757 (Ct. App. 2000) ("A deed is not legally effective until it has been delivered.").

2. As to the remaining issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (providing an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.