Regions Bank v. Stonebridge Development

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

Regions Bank, Respondent,

v.

Stonebridge Development
Group, LLC; Plantation Isle Equity Group, LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability
Company; Carolina Federal Savings Bank; Plantation Isle Equity Partners
General Partnership; Michael Aiello; Frank M. Harvey a/k/a Francis M. Harvey;
Brandon Advertising, Inc.; Rubeling & Associates, Inc.; Carolina Custom
Docks, LLC; J. Mark Caldwell, individually; and Carolina Clearing &
Grading, Inc., Defendants,

Of whom Frank
M. Harvey a/k/a Francis M. Harvey is the Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-276

Heard April 11, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012

AFFIRMED

Lawrence J. Gebhardt, of Baltimore, Maryland
and Lee Anne Walters, Rutledge Young, III, and Charles S. Altman, all of
Charleston, for Appellant.

Sarah Patrick Spruill, of Greenville and
Stanley H. McGuffin and Louise M. Johnson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frank Harvey appeals the master's order
declining to set aside default judgment. On appeal, Harvey argues the master
erred by (1) determining he was properly served a summons and complaint and (2)
not holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the master
erred in determining Harvey was properly served:  Fassett v. Evans, 364
S.C. 42, 47, 610 S.E.2d 841, 843 (Ct. App. 2005) ("It is the plaintiff[']s
burden to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the
defendant."); Richardson Constr. Co. v. Meek Eng'g & Constr., Inc.,
274 S.C. 307, 311, 262 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1980) ("An affidavit of service is [p]rima facie
evidence of service which may be impeached by extrinsic evidence."); Patel v. S. Brokers, Ltd., 277 S.C. 490, 493, 289 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1982)
(holding a defendant's mere denial of service is insufficient to rebut the
presumption).

2. As to whether the master
erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First
Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007)
(holdingissues not raised and ruled upon
in the trial court will not be considered on appeal); Knight v. Waggoner,
359 S.C. 492, 496, 597 S.E.2d 894, 896 (Ct. App. 2004) (arguments made for
first time on appeal are not preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.