JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Tucker

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

JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association,
Respondent,

v.

Brian Adrian Tucker, Jessica C. Tucker, and Half Mile
Lake Homeowner's Association, Inc., Defendants,

Of whom Brian Adrian Tucker and Jessica C. Tucker are
the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212447

Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-292
Heard May 16, 2013 – Filed June 26, 2013
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled August 28, 2013

AFFIRMED

Andrew Sims Radeker, of Harrison & Radeker, P.A., of
Columbia, and David Lloyd Thomas, of Moore, Taylor,
& Thomas, PA, of Greenville, for Appellants.
James Derrick Jackson and Tobias Gavin Ward, Jr., of
Tobias G. Ward, Jr., PA, Ronald C. Scott, Erica Greer
Lybrand, and Priti Marolia Patel, of Scott Law Firm, PA,
and Hamilton Osborne, Jr., of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd,
PA, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this mortgage foreclosure action, Brian Adrian Tucker and
Jessica C. Tucker appeal the trial court's order denying their motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP, and ejecting them from the property.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. Relief from judgment: Sundown Operating Co. v. Intedge Indus., Inc., 383
S.C. 601, 606, 681 S.E.2d 885, 888 (2009) (noting "[t]he decision whether to set
aside an entry of default or a default judgment lies solely within the sound
discretion of the trial judge" and"[t]he trial court's decision will not be disturbed on
appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion"); In re Estate of
Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 259, 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) (stating an abuse
of discretion occurs when the judgment is controlled by some error of law or when
the order is without evidentiary support); Regions Bank v. Strawn, 399 S.C. 530,
537, 732 S.E.2d 230, 234 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Questions regarding credibility and the
weight of the evidence are exclusively for the trial court.").

2. Foreclosure intervention: Rule 210(h), SCACR ("Except as provided by
Rule 212 and Rule 208(b)(1)(C) and (2), the appellate court will not consider any
fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Harkins v. Greenville
Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 616, 533 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2000) (stating the appellant has the
burden of providing an adequate record on appeal).

3. Ejectment: Because we affirm the trial court's denial of the Tucker's request
for relief from the foreclosure and the Tuckers no longer have any interest in the
property, we find the issue of ejectment is moot. See Ex parte Doe, 393 S.C. 147,
151, 711 S.E.2d 892, 894 (2011) ("A moot case exists where a judgment rendered
by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy
because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for
the reviewing court.").

AFFIRMED.
HUFF and KONDUROS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.