American Equipment Leasing v. Bartels

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

American Equipment Leasing (a division of EAB Leasing, Corp.),       
Respondent,

v.

Bruce Bartels,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

B. Hicks Harwell, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-702

Submitted September 17, 2003 – Filed
December 3, 2003

AFFIRMED

Marvin P. Jackson, of Florence, for Appellant.

Steven R. Anderson, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Bruce Bartels appeals the circuit
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Equipment.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  Rule 56(c), SCRCP; South Carolina Prop. &
Cas. Guar. Assoc. v. Yensen, 345 S.C. 512, 548 S.E.2d 880 (Ct. App. 2001)
(Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.  To
determine whether any material facts exist, the evidence and all inferences
which can be reasonably drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party.); WDW Prop. v. City of Sumter, 342 S.C. 6, 10,
535 S.E.2d 631, 632 (2000) (“When an appeal involves stipulated or undisputed
facts, an appellate court is free to review whether the trial court properly
applied the law to those facts.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 36-9-201(a) (2003) (“[A]
security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties,
against purchasers of the collateral and against creditors.); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 36-9-320(a) (2003) (“[A] buyer in the ordinary course of business . . . takes
free of a security interest created by the buyer’s seller, even if the security
interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence.”); See Pengues
v. Warley, 14 S.C. 180 (1880) (A purchaser can take no greater right or
title than his seller may convey.); United States v. Anders Contracting Co.,
Inc., 111 F. Supp. 700, 702 (1953) (Stating where a party only held possession
of a truck under the provisions of a contract with a right to obtain title upon
performance of the contract, title was retained by the seller.  Also stating
seller was protected by a contemporaneous lien and such rights as [the party]
acquired were qualified and limited by the terms of seller’s contract executed
before any property or property rights vested in that party.)

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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