Wells Fargo Bank v. Pappas

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Successor by merger to
Wachovia Bank, N.A., Respondent,

v.

Ronald P. Pappas, a/k/a Ronald Peter Pappas, and
Camine Pappas, Appellants,

And

Ronald P. Pappas, a/k/a Ronald Peter Pappas, and
Camine Pappas, Cross-Plaintiffs,

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Craft Development, LLC,
A North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Cross-
Defendants.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001505

Appeal From Lancaster County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-263
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed June 8, 2016

AFFIRMED
John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.

Shelton Sterling Laney, III, of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, LLP, of Greenville, and Matthew
Todd Carroll, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2003)
(noting that to avoid summary judgment, "the nonmoving party must demonstrate
the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and
that the party is 'not merely engaged in a "fishing expedition'''" (quoting Baughman
v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 112, 410 S.E.2d 537, 544 (1991)));
Schnellmann v. Roettger, 373 S.C. 379, 382, 645 S.E.2d 239, 241 (2007) ("To
establish a cause of action for fraud, the following elements must be proven by
clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity;
(3) its materiality; (4) either knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of its
truth or falsity; (5) intent that the representation be acted upon; (6) the hearer's
ignorance of its falsity; (7) the hearer's reliance on its truth; (8) the hearer's right
to rely thereon; and (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury." (emphasis
added)); id. ("The failure to prove any element of fraud . . . is fatal to the claim.");
AMA Mgmt. Corp. v. Strasburger, 309 S.C. 213, 222, 420 S.E.2d 868, 874 (Ct.
App. 1992) ("[T]he plaintiff must allege and prove the following essential elements
to establish liability for negligent misrepresentation: (1) the defendant made a
false representation to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant had a pecuniary interest in
making the statement; (3) the defendant owed a duty of care to see that he
communicated truthful information to the plaintiff; (4) the defendant breached that
duty by failing to exercise due care; (5) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the
representation; and (6) the plaintiff suffered a pecuniary loss as the proximate
result of his reliance upon the representation." (emphasis added)); Jefferies v.
Phillips, 316 S.C. 523, 527, 451 S.E.2d 21, 23 (Ct. App. 1994) ("To be actionable
under the [South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act], an unfair or deceptive
practice or act must adversely affect the public interest."); King v. Oxford, 282 S.C.
307, 312, 318 S.E.2d 125, 128 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The court will not protect the
person who, with full opportunity to do so, will not protect himself."); McCall v.
Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4, 362 S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[W]hatever doesn't
make any difference, doesn't matter.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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