CourtListener 10149455•US Bank v. Byrd
Gesamter Gesetzestext
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, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of Manufactured
Housing Contract Senior/Subordinate Pass-Through
Certificate 1996-6, by Green Tree Servicing LLC, as
Servicer with delegated authority under the transaction
documents, Respondent,
v.
Kim Byrd and the South Carolina Department of
Revenue, Defendants,
Of whom Kim Byrd is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002610
Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gordon G. Cooper, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-126
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed March 2, 2016
AFFIRMED
J. Edwin McDonnell, of S.C. Legal Services, of
Spartanburg, for Appellant.
Theodore von Keller, B. Lindsay Crawford, III, and Sara
Christine Hutchins, of Crawford & von Keller, LLC, of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Kim Byrd appeals the master-in-equity's order arguing the
master erred in finding U.S. Bank National Association (Bank) had standing to
pursue foreclosure of a promissory note. Byrd asserts Bank did not have standing
because it was not the owner and holder of the promissory note. We affirm.1
We find the master did not err in finding Bank had standing to pursue foreclosure.
See Hayne Fed. Credit Union v. Bailey, 327 S.C. 242, 248, 489 S.E.2d 472, 475
(1997) ("A mortgage foreclosure is an action in equity."); Wachovia Bank, Nat.
Ass'n v. Blackburn, 407 S.C. 321, 328, 755 S.E.2d 437, 441 (2014) ("In an appeal
from an action in equity tried by a judge, appellate courts may find facts in
accordance with their own views of the preponderance of the evidence."); Pinckney
v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387, 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001) ("However, this broad
scope of review does not require an appellate court to disregard the findings below
or ignore the fact that the [master] is in the better position to assess the credibility
of the witnesses."); Id. at 387-88, 544 S.E.2d at 623 ("Moreover, the appellant is
not relieved of his burden of convincing the appellate court the [master] committed
error in his findings."). The promissory note was originally executed to Green
Tree Financial Servicing Corporation. After a merger and a name change, Green
Tree Financial Servicing Corporation became Green Tree Servicing, LLC. As part
of the merger, Green Tree Servicing, LLC took over certain pooling and servicing
agreements, one of which was a pooling and servicing agreement with Bank. The
pooling and servicing agreement provided Bank was a "trustee" for a trust that
would acquire contracts that were managed and serviced by Green Tree Servicing,
LLC, after the merger. The promissory note was then sold to the trust, and Bank
was the trustee. Testimony at the hearing from an employee at Green Tree
Servicing, LLC provided that as trustee, Bank had the power to foreclose on the
promissory notes the trust held. See S.C. Code Ann. § 36-1-201(b)(21)(a) (Supp.
2015) (stating a holder is "the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that
is payable . . . to . . . an identified person that is the person in possession"); S.C.
Code Ann. § 36-3-301 (Supp. 2015) (noting the holder of an instrument is entitled
to enforce the instrument). Because Bank was entitled to enforce the instrument, it
had standing to pursue foreclosure. See Rule 17(a), SCRCP ("Every action shall be
prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest."); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Draper,
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
405 S.C. 214, 220, 746 S.E.2d 478, 481 (Ct. App. 2013) ("It is ownership of the
right sought to be enforced which qualifies one as a real party in interest, rather
than absolute ownership of specific property." (footnote omitted) (quoting 4 S.C.
Jur. Action § 23 (1991))); id. ("Generally, a party must be a real party in interest to
the litigation to have standing." (quoting Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl.
Control, 389 S.C. 1, 22, 698 S.E.2d 612, 623 (2010))).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.