Steffens v. Ocwen Loan Servicing

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

Neva Steffens, Appellant,

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Mortgage Electronic
Registrations Systems, Inc., MERSCorps, Inc., American
Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. a/k/a Homeward
Residential, Wells Fargo National Association, and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Defendants,

Of whom Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and American
Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. a/k/a Homeward
Residential, are the Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002297

Appeal From Greenville County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-268
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Neva Steffens, of Greenville, pro se.

Sean A. O'Connor, of Finkel Law Firm LLC, of North
Charleston, and Michael Wallace Smith, of Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, of
Orlando, Florida, both for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003)
("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the
trial court will not be considered on appeal."); id. at 142, 587 S.E.2d at 694 ("A
party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it
must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); I'On, L.L.C.
v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000)
("Imposing this preservation requirement on the appellant is meant to enable the
lower court to rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and
arguments. The requirement also serves as a keen incentive for a party to prepare a
case thoroughly. It prevents a party from keeping an ace card up his sleeve—
intentionally or by chance—in the hope that an appellate court will accept that ace
card and, via a reversal, give him another opportunity to prove his case." (citation
omitted)); State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 265 n.5, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 n.5 (2003) ("A
pro se litigant who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full
responsibility for complying with substantive and procedural requirements of the
law.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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