Edgar Mora Romero v. Nathan T. Rosemond

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

Edgar Mora Romero and Upstate House Projects, LLC,
Appellants,

v.

Nathan T. Rosemond, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000032

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Shannon Metz Phillips, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-221
Submitted June 18, 2025 – Filed July 2, 2025

AFFIRMED

Richard H. Rhodes and William Hardwick Rhodes, both
of Burts Turner & Rhodes, of Spartanburg, for
Appellants.

Rustin Bryce Duncan, of King Law Offices PC, of Greer,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Edgar Mora Romero and Upstate House Projects, LLC
(collectively, Appellants) appeal the master-in-equity's order setting aside the tax
sale of the subject property as well as its subsequent transfer to Appellants. On
appeal, Appellants argue (1) the master erred in holding Nathan T. Rosemond was
the rightful owner of the subject property and (2) Appellants are bona fide
purchasers for value. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the master did not err in holding Rosemond was the owner of the
subject property, setting aside the tax sale, and voiding the subsequent transfer to
Appellants. See King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 24, 694 S.E.2d 35, 39 (Ct. App. 2010)
("An action to set aside a tax sale lies in equity."); id. ("Our scope of review for a
case heard by a [m]aster permits us to determine facts in accordance with our own
view of the preponderance of the evidence."). Although Rosemond did not own
the properties when taxes first became delinquent, he was a grantee of record and
thus, must be afforded strict compliance with statutory notice requirements. See
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-40(a) (2014) (stating notices must be sent to "the
defaulting taxpayer and to a grantee of record of the property" (emphasis added));
S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-120 (2014) (stating the tax collector is required to mail a
redemption notice to "the defaulting taxpayer and to a grantee, mortgagee, or
lessee of the property of record in the appropriate public records of the county");
Rives v. Bulsa, 325 S.C. 287, 292, 478 S.E.2d 878, 880 (Ct. App. 1996) ("South
Carolina appellate courts have consistently held the enforcing agencies of
government to strict compliance with all the legal requirements surrounding tax
sales."); Forfeited Land Comm'n of Bamberg Cnty. v. Beard, 424 S.C. 137, 148,
817 S.E.2d 801, 806 (Ct. App. 2018) ("[T]he failure to provide the required
statutory notice is [a] type of jurisdictional defect . . . that renders the tax sale void
and the statute of limitations inapplicable.").

2. We hold Appellants' argument that Romero is a bona fide purchaser for value is
unpreserved for review because it was neither raised to nor ruled on by the master.
See Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004)
("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review only when they are
raised to and ruled on by the lower court.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

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