United States v. Patricia A. White

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

United States of America acting through the Rural
Housing Service or successor agency, United States
Department of Agriculture, Appellant,

v.

Patricia A. White a/k/a Patricia Ann White, and Family
Services, Inc., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001419

Appeal From Horry County
Alan D. Clemmons, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-265
Submitted May 21, 2026 – Filed June 3, 2026

AFFIRMED

Taylor Anthony Peace, of Harrell, Martin, & Peace, P.A.,
of Chapin; and Jamie Anna Weller, of Riley Pope &
Laney, LLC, of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Patricia A. White, of Columbia, pro se.

Thomas Dean Kilpatrick, of Murphy and Kilpatrick, LLP
of Columbia, as the Guardian ad Litem for Respondent
Patricia A. White.
PER CURIAM: United States of America acting through successor agency,
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), appeals the master-in-equity's
limitation of its recovery of costs for property maintenance and preservation
(together, property costs) and accrued interest in its foreclosure action against
White. On appeal, USDA argues the master erred in (1) sua sponte granting White
relief pursuant to the affirmative defenses of laches and unclean hands when White
had waived those grounds, (2) sua sponte granting White relief based upon public
policy when White had waived that ground, and (3) failing to award in full the
amount of property costs and accrued interest due under the terms of the note and
mortgage. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold USDA lacks standing to challenge the master's ruling as to laches because
it prevailed upon that issue before the master. See Davis v. S.C. Dep't of Motor
Vehicles, 420 S.C. 98, 103, 800 S.E.2d 493, 495 (Ct. App. 2017) ("If a party
prevails on an issue below, the party is not an aggrieved party with respect to those
rulings, and thus, the party may not appeal those issues."). In the master's order
granting judgment of foreclosure, it found there was an "extended" delay in
commencement of the foreclosure action and applied the doctrine of laches to
reduce property costs by one-half and limit USDA's recovery of interest to a period
of two years from the date of default. USDA filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e)
of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure arguing that because White failed
to raise laches or dispute the terms of the mortgage in pleadings or at the final
hearing, the master erred in ruling laches precluded recovery in the amount
provided for in the mortgage. Thereafter, the master filed an order denying
USDA's Rule 59(e) motion, in which it maintained its ruling to reduce property
costs by one-half and limit USDA's recovery of interest to a period of two years
from the date of default; however, it did so because USDA's "significant delay in
initiating and finalizing" the foreclosure demonstrated unclean hands warranting
sua sponte address from the master as a matter of public policy. USDA did not file
any motions challenging this order. Although the master denied USDA's Rule
59(e) motion, the master actually altered the order granting judgment of
foreclosure by finding USDA's delay in commencing foreclosure demonstrated
unclean hands—instead of laches—and thus reducing property costs and recovery
of interest as a matter of public policy. See Doe v. Bishop of Charleston, 407 S.C.
128, 135, 754 S.E.2d 494, 498 (2014) ("As a general rule, judgments are to be
construed like other written instruments. The determinative factor is the intent of
the court, as gathered, not from an isolated part thereof, but from all the parts of the
judgment itself." (quoting Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84, 90, 382 S.E.2d 471, 474 (Ct.
App. 1989))). Consequently, we find that—as USDA's brief states—USDA
prevailed upon its Rule 59(e) motion; therefore, we decline to address the issue of
laches on appeal. See Davis, 420 S.C. at 103, 800 S.E.2d at 495 ("If a party
prevails on an issue below, the party is not an aggrieved party with respect to those
rulings, and thus, the party may not appeal those issues.").

We hold USDA failed to preserve for review whether the master erred in ruling sua
sponte that unclean hands and public policy applied to limit USDA's recovery of
property costs and interest. See Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602
S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004) ("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate
review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the [trial] court."). Although
the grounds of unclean hands and public policy were ruled upon without having
been raised to the master, USDA failed to file a successive Rule 59(e) motion
raising those issues for the master's consideration. See Fryer v. S.C. L. Enf't Div.,
369 S.C. 395, 399, 631 S.E.2d 918, 920 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A post-trial motion must
be made when the trial court either grants relief not requested or rules on an issue
not raised at trial."); Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C.
323, 329, 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) ("Issue preservation rules are designed to
give the trial court a fair opportunity to rule on the issues, and thus provide [the
appellate court] with a platform for meaningful appellate review." (quoting
Queen's Grant II Horizontal Prop. Regime v. Greenwood Dev. Corp., 368 S.C.
342, 373, 628 S.E.2d 902, 919 (Ct. App. 2006))); cf. Swing v. Swing, 445 S.C. 340,
348 n.3, 914 S.E.2d 158, 163 n.3 (2025) (addressing timely filing of appeals in
relation to Rule 59(e) and indicating a successive Rule 59(e) motion is
procedurally necessary in order to "challenge[] something that was altered from the
original judgment as a result of the initial" Rule 59(e) motion (quoting Elam, 361
S.C. at 15, 602 S.E.2d at 775)). Therefore, we hold USDA's issues regarding
unclean hands and public policy are not preserved for appellate review. See Elam,
361 S.C. at 23, 602 S.E.2d at 779-80 ("Issues and arguments are preserved for
appellate review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the [trial] court.").

Finally, we decline to address USDA's third issue on appeal concerning the effect
of the master's rulings because our determination that USDA failed to preserve its
arguments concerning the bases of the master's rulings are not preserved for review
is dispositive. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (indicating the appellate court need not address a
remaining issue when its disposition of a prior issue is dispositive).
AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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