SunTrust v. Ostendorff

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

SunTrust v. Ostendorff

DecidedMay 31, 2017

Docket2017-UP-234

StatusUnpublished

This text of SunTrust v. Ostendorff (SunTrust v. Ostendorff) 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

SunTrust v. Ostendorff, (S.C. Ct. App. 2017).

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

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Mark Ostendorff, Appellant

Appellate Case No. 2015-000198

Appeal From York County S. Jackson Kimball, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-234 Submitted March 1, 2017 – Filed May 31, 2017

APPEAL DISMISSED

Mark Ostendorff, of Central, pro se.

Brian Steed Tatum, of Tatum Law firm, PLLC, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C. 469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991) (holding an order restoring a case to the active docket is not directly appealable). AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and THOMAS, 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