Deutsche Bank v. Dooly

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for
Argent Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2004-W11, Respondent,

v.

Geary Thomas Dooly, Eleanor S. Dooly, and United
States of America, Defendants,

Of whom Geary Thomas Dooly is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000600

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Gordon G. Cooper, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-404
Submitted May 1, 2015 – Filed August 12, 2015

AFFIRMED

Geary Thomas Dooly, pro se, of Spartanburg.

Giles M. Schanen, Jr., and Sarah Rachelle Anderson,
both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Geary Thomas Dooly appeals the master-in-equity's order
dismissing his counterclaims with prejudice. On appeal, Dooly argues (1) this case
was wrought with fraud, deception, and acts of bad faith; (2) Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company's (the Bank's) counsel failed to establish their authority
and jurisdiction to represent the Bank; (3) the Bank failed to provide a signed
contractual agreement delegating authority to its counsel; (4) the Bank failed to
reply, defend, or comply with the allegations presented in his Third Amended
Counterclaim; (5) the master-in-equity lacked jurisdiction; (6) the circuit court
failed to schedule a hearing on his motion to reconsider its order; (7) the master-in-
equity erred in dismissing his counterclaims; (8) the circuit court erred in declining
to grant his request for a continuance; (9) the circuit court erred in dismissing his
counterclaims; (10) the circuit court ignored his motion to reconsider; (11) this
case should be dismissed due to the bad faith and fraudulent actions of the Bank's
counsel; and (12) the master-in-equity erred in denying his request for a
continuance. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to Issue Five: Rule 53(b), SCRCP ("In an action . . . for foreclosure, some or
all of the causes of action in a case may be referred to a master . . . by order of a
circuit judge or the clerk of court."); Rule 53(c), SCRCP ("Once referred, the
master . . . shall exercise all power and authority which a circuit judge sitting
without a jury would have in a similar matter."); Rule 71(a), SCRCP ("Actions to
foreclose liens or obtain partition of real property shall be tried by the court, and
shall ordinarily be referred to a master pursuant to Rule 53."); Eddins v. Eddins,
304 S.C. 133, 135, 403 S.E.2d 164, 166 (Ct. App. 1991) ("[I]n construing an
ambiguous order or decree, the determinative factor is to ascertain the intent of the
judge who wrote the order."); id. at 136, 403 S.E.2d at 166 ("'[T]he interpretation
or construction of a judgment must be characterized by justice and fairness.'"
(quoting 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 73 (1969))).

2. As to Issue Seven: Judy v. Martin, 381 S.C. 455, 459, 674 S.E.2d 151, 153
(2009) ("[A]n unappealed ruling becomes the law of the case and precludes further
consideration of the issue on appeal." (citing In re Morrison, 321 S.C. 370, 372
n.2, 468 S.E.2d 651, 652 n.2 (1996))); Rule 59(e), SCRCP ("A motion to alter or
amend the judgment shall be served not later than [ten] days after receipt of written
notice of the entry of the order.").

3. As to Issue Twelve: First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 362, 444 S.E.2d
513, 514 (1994) ("A motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the
[circuit] court and the ruling will not be reversed without a clear showing of
abuse."); Purex Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390, 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982)
("Whether a judge does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts
before him at the time.").

4. As to the remaining issues: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d
731, 733 (1998) ("[A]n issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must
have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate
review."); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 25, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780
(2004) ("If a party is unsure whether he properly raised all issues and obtained a
ruling, he must file a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion or an appellate court may later
determine the issue or argument is not preserved for review.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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