US Bank v. Bebout

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 16, 2014
• Docket: 2014-UP-171
• Status: Unpublished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

US Bank National Association as Successor Trustee to Bank of America National Association, Successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3XS, Respondent,

v.

Barbara E. Bebout; Robert A. Swayngham a/k/a Robert Alec Swayngham; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MIN# 1001419-0060908012-1); The Peoples National Bank, Defendants & Third Party Plaintiffs,

of whom Barbara E. Bebout and Robert A. Swayngham are Appellants,

Americash Mortgage Corporation, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2012-211187

Appeal From Pickens County R. Murray Hughes, III, Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-171 Submitted December 1, 2013 – Filed April 16, 2014

AFFIRMED J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Thomas E. Lydon, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent US Bank National Association.

Louis H. Lang, of Callison Tighe & Robinson, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent Americash Mortgage Corporation.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether Americash Mortgage Corporation afforded Barbara E. Bebout and Robert A. Swayngham (collectively Borrowers) a meaningful opportunity to have the attorney of their choice represent them in all matters of their mortgage transaction: Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12-13, 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The [s]pecial [r]eferee, as trier of fact, has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and the weight of the evidence presented. In an action at law, this [c]ourt must affirm the factual findings of the [s]pecial [r]eferee unless no evidence reasonably supports those findings. In reviewing an action tried at law, it is not the place of this [c]ourt to substitute its own view as to the facts." (citations omitted)).

2. As to Borrowers' remaining issues: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) ("'An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.'" (quoting Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P'ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993))).

AFFIRMED.1

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

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