Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc.Oden

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

Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Patrick Oden, Suzanne Oden, and Hickory Hill Plantation
Community Association, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000118

Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-In-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-026
Submitted October 1, 2020 – Filed January 27, 2021

AFFIRMED

Magalie Arcure Creech, of Finkel Law Firm LLC, of
Charleston, for Appellant.

Paul J. Doolittle, of Jekel Law, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In this civil matter, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (U.S. Bank) appeals
the master-in-equity's order denying (1) its motion to substitute U.S. Bank for
Bayview Loan Servicing, Inc. (Bayview) as the plaintiff in a prior action pursuant
to Rules 17(a) and 25, SCRCP and (2) its motion for relief from judgment pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(5), SCRCP. We affirm.

We find the master did not abuse his discretion in denying U.S. Bank's motion to
substitute itself as a party. See Bryant v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 342 S.C. 159, 165,
536 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing that an appellate court will not
reverse the master's denial of a motion to substitute absent an abuse of discretion).
U.S. Bank moved for substitution over two years after the master dismissed the
prior foreclosure action with prejudice. It sought substitution as a plaintiff in an
effort to regain the ability to foreclose on the Oden's mortgaged property. The
master eliminated that right with a prior order in 2015. Although our rules of civil
procedure do not provide a time limitation for the substitution of parties and
subsection 25(e) specifically allows for post-judgment substitution, we find the
ability to revive an extinguished right of a prior party is not within the purview of
Rule 25. See Rule 25(c) ("In case of any transfer of interest, the action may be
continued by or against the original party, unless the court upon motion directs the
person to whom the interest is transferred to be substituted in the action or joined
with the original party."); Bryant, 342 S.C. at 164 n.2, 536 S.E.2d at 382 n.2 ("Rule
25(c) is applicable whe[n] there is a transfer of interest during the pendency of an
action . . . ."); Rule 25(e) ("Substitution of parties under the provision of this rule
may be made by the trial court either before or after judgment, or pending appeal,
by the appellate court."). Therefore, substitution in the instant case would be
improper. Even though U.S. Bank, as Bayview's assignee, is entitled to the
outstanding debt on the note, Bayview lost the right to seek recovery through
foreclosure. Therefore, U.S. Bank has no right to foreclose the mortgaged
property. See BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Kinder, 398 S.C. 619, 624, 731
S.E.2d 547, 549 (2012) ("An assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor.").
Accordingly, we hold the master properly denied U.S. Bank's motion for
substitution of the parties.1

AFFIRMED.2

1
Because our finding above is dispositive, we need not address whether the master
erred in denying U.S. Bank's Rule 60(b)(5) motion. See Rule 60(b)(5) ("On
motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . ." (emphasis
added)); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518
S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not review remaining
issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.