Wachovia Bank v. Beckham

Wachovia Bank, NA brought fourteen foreclosure actions against several
defendants, all having an interest in certain real property in ___________

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

2005-CP-16-01144

Wachovia Bank,
NA as successor in interest to Wachovia Mortgage Company and First Federal
Savings Bank, Respondent,

v.

I. Fred
Beckham, Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer,
individually, Falcon Unlimited, LP, Winn-Barr Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc., Sunbelt Rentals,
Inc., Nesbet Oil Company, First Select, Inc., General Electric Capital
Corporation, Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Carolinas Medical
Center, City Builders Service, Inc., Defendants,

Of whom: Donald
Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L Hofer, individually and Falcon
Unlimited, LP, are Appellants,

AND

2005-CP-46-972,
983, 984, 986, 989, 1013, 1045, 1068, 1094, 1121, 1122

Ex Parte: Donald
Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, Appellant,

In
Re: Wachovia Bank, NA as successor in interest to First Federal
Savings Bank, Respondent,

v.

Falcon
Unlimited, LP, Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc.,
Winn-Bar Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendants,

AND

2005-CP-46-973

Ex Parte:
Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, Appellant,

In Re: Wachovia
Bank, NA as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank, Respondent,

v.

Falcon
Unlimited, LP, Samuel B. Fewell, Jr., Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora
Loan Services, Inc., Winn-Bar Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendants,

AND

2005-CP-46-1093

Ex Parte:
Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, Appellant,

In Re: Wachovia
Bank, NA as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank, Respondent,

v.

Falcon
Unlimited, LP, Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc.,
Winn-Bar Homeowners Association, Inc., Cedar Villas Owners Association, Inc., Defendants.

Appeal From York County

Special Referee F. Craig Wilkerson

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-018

Submitted January 1, 2008 – Filed January
10, 2008   

DISMISSED

Mark Weston Hardee, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Weston Adams, III, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIUM: In this consolidated appeal
of fourteen foreclosure actions, Donald Lewis Hofer (Hofer) and Falcon
Unlimited, L.P. (Falcon) argue the special referee erred in dismissing Hofer from
the proceedings.  We dismiss. [1]

FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND

Hofer executed a note and mortgage to Wachovia Bank,
NA (Wachovia), as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank.  The
note and mortgage secured various properties in York County, South Carolina. 
Hofer subsequently conveyed the properties to Falcon, the current owner of the
properties.  In 1998, Wachovia initiated foreclosure proceedings against Hofer
and Falcon (collectively “Appellants”).  Wachovia entered into a settlement
agreement with Appellants in 2001.

On April
25, 2005, Wachovia brought the instant foreclosure actions.  Appellants answered,
counterclaimed, and requested a jury trial.  Wachovia moved to dismiss Hofer
from the case on the ground that he was not a required or necessary party.  By
order dated January 25, 2006, the special referee dismissed Hofer from the
proceedings.   Appellants appeal.

LAW / ANALYSIS

The sole
issue set forth in Appellants’ brief states as follows:

The
special referee’s orders [sic] dismissing Donald Lewis Hofer from these series
of foreclosure cases were in error since Donald Lewis Hofer had submitted
answers with counterclaims and he had asserted his right to a jury trial.

The argument section of Appellants’
brief, however, nowhere addresses Hofer’s dismissal from the foreclosure
proceedings.  We therefore decline to address this issue.  See First
Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (stating
an appellant must provide authority and supporting arguments for his issue to
be considered on appeal); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi,  358 S.C. 78,
99, 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue is deemed
abandoned where argued in only a short conclusory statement); Fields v.
Fields, 342 S.C. 182, 191 n.8, 536 S.E.2d 684, 689 n.8 (Ct. App. 2000)
(deeming an issue abandoned where the appellant included the issue in the
statement of issues on appeal but failed to argue the issue in the body of the
brief).[2]

Appellants argue in
their brief the special referee erred in dismissing Appellants’ counterclaims. 
This issue, however, is not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal; therefore,
this issue is not preserved for our review.  See Rule 208(b)(1)(B),
SCACR; Langehans v. Smith, 347 S.C. 348, 352, 554 S.E.2d 681, 683 (Ct.
App. 2001) (stating the appellant’s brief must set forth an issue in the statement
of issues on appeal to preserve the issue on appeal).   

DISMISSED.

HUFF AND PIEPER, JJ. and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur. 

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

[2] We note Hofer’s dismissal was without prejudice.  The
order states “Dismissal of Hofer from the case neither impedes foreclosure nor
prejudices his ability to proceed in a separate action against the plaintiff
for alleged personal claims.”