East Bay Company, Ltd. v. Baxley Commercial Properties, LLC

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

East Bay
Company, Ltd., as successor in interest to Regions Bank, Respondent,

v.

Baxley
Commercial Properties, LLC, a North Carolina Limited liability company;
Co-Realty, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company; Lowcountry
Endodontics, P.A., a South Carolina Proffessional associtation; CMM Properties,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company; Christos M. Maltezos a/k/a
Christos M. Maltezos; Park West Master Association Inc., a South Carolina
non-profit corporation;  and Atrium Builders, LLC, a South Carolina limited
liability company, Defendants,

of whom Atrium Builders,
LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company is Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No.    2011-UP-186

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 25,
2011

APPEAL DISMISSED

James E. Weatherholtz and James M. Wilson, both of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Mark S. Sharpe, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this
mortgage foreclosure action, Atrium Builders (Atrium) argues the Master-in-Equity
erred in making certain findings of fact and conclusions of law in his final
order.  Specifically, Atrium contends the master erred because his findings and
conclusions that no agreement existed between Atrium and Regions Bank (Regions)
may have a preclusive effect in a separate action Atrium filed against
Regions.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Baber v.
Greenville Cnty., 327 S.C. 31, 44-45, 488 S.E.2d 314, 321 (1997) (finding mandamus issue not ripe for
appellate review because it had not been presented to the Tax Commission); Pee Dee Elec. Co-op. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 279 S.C. 64, 66, 301 S.E.2d 761, 762 (1983) (noting
an issue that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract is not ripe for review); Park v. Safeco Ins. Co., 251 S.C. 410, 414, 162 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1968)
("The courts generally decline to pronounce a declaration in a suit
wherein the rights of the plaintiff are contingent upon the happening of some
event which cannot be forecast and which may never take place.").

DISMISSED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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