CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Moxley

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

CitiMortgage, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Mary L. Moxley a/k/a Mary Moxley n/k/a Mary
Richardson; Hudson & Keyse LLC; First Manufactured
Housing Credit Corporation who acquired First Carolina
Financial Corporation; and South Carolina Department of
Motor Vehicles, Defendants,

Of whom Mary L. Moxley is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002060

Appeal From Aiken County
M. Anderson Griffith, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-303
Submitted June 1, 2019 – Filed August 21, 2019

AFFIRMED

Tom Griffin Woodruff, Jr., of Woodruff Law Offices,
LLC, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Magalie Arcure Creech, of Finkel Law Firm, LLC, of
Charleston; and Kirby Darr Shealy, III, and W. Cliff
Moore, III, both of Adams and Reese LLP, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Blackburn, 407 S.C. 321, 328, 755
S.E.2d 437, 440-41 (2014) ("A mortgage foreclosure is an action in equity."
(quoting Hayne Fed. Credit Union v. Bailey, 327 S.C. 242, 248, 489 S.E.2d 472,
475 (1997))); Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Murray, 419 S.C.
605, 614, 799 S.E.2d 310, 315 (Ct. App. 2017) ("[This] court's standard of review
in equitable matters is our own view of the preponderance of the evidence."
(quoting Horry County v. Ray, 382 S.C. 76, 80, 674 S.E.2d 519, 522 (Ct. App.
2009))); U.S. Bank Tr. Nat'l Ass'n v. Bell, 385 S.C. 364, 373, 684 S.E.2d 199, 204
(Ct. App. 2009) ("However, this broad scope of review does not require an
appellate court to disregard the findings below or ignore the fact that the [circuit
court] is in the better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses." (quoting
Pinckney v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387, 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001))); id.
("Moreover, the appellant is not relieved of his burden of convincing the appellate
court the [circuit court] committed error in [its] findings." (quoting Pinckney, 344
S.C. at 387-88, 544 S.E.2d at 623)); id. at 374-75, 684 S.E.2d at 205 ("Generally,
the party seeking foreclosure has the burden of establishing the existence of the
debt and the mortgagor's default on that debt."); id. at 375, 684 S.E.2d at 205
("[T]he mortgagor has the burden of establishing a defense to foreclosure . . . .").

AFFIRMED.2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
Because Moxley did not specifically challenge the master's rulings as to the
unauthorized practice of law and whether there were sufficient witnesses to the
mortgage, we decline to address these arguments. See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR
("Ordinarily, no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of
the issues on appeal."); S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of Health
& Envtl. Control, 363 S.C. 67, 76, 610 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2005) ("A ruling not
challenged on appeal is the law of the case, regardless of the correctness of the
ruling.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.