Palmetto Residential Builders, LLC v. Cox

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

Palmetto Residential Builders, LLC, Appellant,

v.

Michael Cox and Elizabeth Cox, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002455

Appeal From Kershaw County
Jeffrey Marc Tzerman, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-524
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed December 21, 2016

AFFIRMED

Benjamin C. Bruner and Joey Randell Floyd, both of
Bruner Powell Wall & Mullins, LLC, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

R. Charles Richards, of Richards Law Firm, LLC, of
West Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Palmetto Residential Builders, LLC (Palmetto) appeals from the
master-in-equity's order denying its motion to set aside alleged fraudulent
voluntary contributions Michael Cox made to his retirement account. Palmetto
argues the master erred in: (1) precluding attachment of all funds in Cox's
retirement account, including Cox's post-judgment transfers; (2) holding federal
law barred avoidance of the fraudulent transfers because the anti-alienation
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the
internal revenue code do not preclude them; (3) holding the voluntary post-
judgment contributions were made for valuable consideration and there was no
evidence of actual intent to defraud; and (4) finding Cox did not increase the
amount of the contributions to his retirement account after the judgment. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the master erred in precluding attachment of all funds in Cox's
retirement account: S.C. Code §15-41-30(A)(13) (Supp. 2015) ("The following
real and personal property of a debtor domiciled in this State is exempt from
attachment, levy, and sale under any mesne or final process issued by a court or
bankruptcy proceeding: . . . (13) The debtor's right to receive individual retirement
accounts as described in Sections 408(a) and 408A of the Internal Revenue Code,
individual retirement annuities as described in Section 408(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code, and accounts established as part of a trust described in Section
408(c) of the Internal Revenue Code."); id. (providing as an exception that a
judgment creditor is entitled to execute on individual retirement accounts only if
the conveyance is fraudulent).

2. As to whether the master erred in finding Cox did not increase the amount of
the contributions to his retirement account after the judgment: Rodriguez v.
Gutierrez, 391 S.C. 323, 331, 705 S.E.2d 94, 99 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The movant in a
Rule 60(b) motion has the burden of presenting evidence proving the facts
essential to entitle him to relief." (quoting Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 67, 403
S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App.1991))).

3. As to the remaining issues: 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 another issue is dispositive
of the appeal).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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