ACMAR v. Davis

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

ACMAR Group, Appellant,

v.

Commerce Bank,
N.A., Defendant,

Commerce Bank,
N.A.,

v.

C. Dave Davis, Respondent.

Appeal From Beaufort County

Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-508

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed November
18, 2010  

AFFIRMED

James O. Hale, of Hilton Head Island, for
Appellant.

C. Dave Davis, of Hilton Head Island, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   The
appeal arises from an order denying ACMAR Group's motion to enforce a judgment
obtained in New Jersey.  We
affirm[1] the master-in-equity's refusal to
recognize the foreign judgment pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. Concerning whether ACMAR Group's
service of the amended complaint was proper:  New Jersey Court Rule 1:5-1(a)
(providing "[i]n all civil actions, unless otherwise provided by rule or
court order, . . . pleadings subsequent to the original complaint . . . shall
be served . . . upon parties appearing pro se; but no service need be made on
parties who have failed to appear except that pleadings asserting new or
additional claims for relief against such parties in default shall be served
upon them in the manner provided for service of original process")
(emphasis added); Minorplanet Sys. USA Ltd. v. Am. Aire, Inc., 368 S.C.
146, 149, 628 S.E.2d 43, 45 (2006) (stating the validity of a foreign judgment
must be determined by the laws of the state which rendered the judgment); id. (holding in an action at law, tried by a judge without a jury, the findings
must be affirmed if there is any evidence to support them).

2. Concerning whether the
master-in-equity erred in finding ACMAR Group failed to follow proper New Jersey
procedure in obtaining default judgment:  Hagood v. Sommerville, 362
S.C. 191, 199, 607 S.E.2d 707, 711 (2005) (stating the appellate court need not
address additional issues when resolution of prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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