Branch Banking and Trust v. Cain

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

Branch Banking and Trust Company, Respondent,

v.

Wilton H. Cain; Cassandra M. Durrah-Cain; Liberty Hall
Residential Property Owners Association, Inc.,
Defendants,

Of whom Wilton H. Cain and Cassandra M. Durrah-Cain
are Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000292

Appeal From Berkeley County
Dale Edward Van Slambrook, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-296
Submitted June 1, 2019 – Filed August 21, 2019

AFFIRMED

Wilton H. Cain and Cassandra M. Durrah-Cain, of
Adams Run, pro se.

Erica Greer Lybrand, of Rogers Townsend & Thomas,
PC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Wilton H. Cain and Cassandra M. Durrah-Cain appeal the
master-in-equity's order confirming a deficiency judgment and denying their Rule
59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter, amend, or reconsider, asking: (1) What is the exact
amount of insurance paid by the private mortgage insurance Republic Mortgage
insurance company to BB&T; (2) What is the correct amount of the deficiency
judgment owed after appraisal, before insurance payment; (3) Does BB&T's
counsel have legal authorization from the mortgage company to represent BB&T
or is the case closed and they represent a third-party; (4) Does the private mortgage
insurance company insurance payment reduce the loss of BB&T or the amount
owed in a foreclosure in this case; (5) Does BB&T represent the insurer RMIC; (6)
Does the mortgagee have a right under South Carolina law to enrichment in a
foreclosure case; (7) Is BB&T required under South Carolina law to give proper
and timely notice to the Cains that they represent the insurer, a third-party, in a
subrogation action, and is notice in January 2016 proper and timely in this case
filed in 2010; (8) Is a foreclosure action under South Carolina law a tort action, is
there an injury as cover under the collateral source rule, and is the default
considered an accident and the Cains a wrongdoer; (9) Is the private mortgage
insurance wholly independent of the Cains, who paid premiums and were part of
the loan agreement; and (10) Did the master err in not dismissing the deficiency
judgment against the Cains in regard to BB&T, who received a private mortgage
insurance payment to reduce?1 We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

1. As to issues one, two, three, five, and eight, we find these issues not preserved
for appellate review. See Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529
S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("[A]n issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,
but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [master] to be preserved for
appellate review.").

2. As to issue seven, we find this issue abandoned on appeal. See S.C. Dep't of
Transp. v. M & T Enters. of Mt. Pleasant, LLC, 379 S.C. 645, 659, 667 S.E.2d 7,
15 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[E]ven if an issue is preserved at the trial court level, it must
still be properly raised and argued to the appellate court."); Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S.
Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("South

1
We address only the issues set forth in the Cains' initial brief because the Cains
raised new issues in their final brief in violation of the South Carolina Appellate
Court Rules. See Rule 211(b)(1)-(2), SCACR (requiring the parties' final briefs be
identical to their initial briefs except for the addition of references to the record and
the correction of typographical errors).
Carolina law clearly states that short, conclusory statements made without
supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented
for review.").

3. As to issues four, six, nine, and ten, the master-in-equity did not err in
determining the insurance proceeds received by the Respondent do not reduce or
cancel the deficiency judgment against the Appellants. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 29-3-740 (2007) ("The return of the appraisers shall be filed and recorded by the
clerk as a judgment of the court and be subject to appeal as hereinafter provided. If
the value returned after deduction therefrom of the amount of the price at which
the property was sold under direction of the court be equal to or exceed the amount
of the deficiency remaining upon the judgment after application of the net proceeds
of sale the judgment shall be thereupon extinguished and cancelled of record by the
clerk and if such returned value, after deduction of the amount of the sale price, be
less than the deficiency the latter shall be abated and deemed paid, pro tanto, and
be thereafter enforceable for only the remainder, the amount of which will be
determined by the clerk and stated in a proper order from which any party may
appeal within ten days after notice of filing thereof to the court or any judge
thereof in accord with the procedure prescribed in [section] 29-3-750[ of the South
Carolina Code (2007)].").2

AFFIRMED.3

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

2
We acknowledge that the master-in-equity applied the collateral source rule. The
application of the rule, however, did not affect the propriety of the judgment
because the judgment was correctly determined pursuant to section 29-3-740.
3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.