Ingomar Limited Partnership v. Eidemiller

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

Ingomar Limited
Partnership, a Nevada Limited Partnership, Respondent,

v.

Michael S.
Eidemiller a/k/a Michael Eidemiller, Martha Eidemiller, Grand Strand Water
& Sewer Authority, and the United States of America by and through the
Internal Revenue Service, Defendants,

Of Whom

Michael S. Eidemiller
a/k/a Michael Eidemiller and Martha Eidemiller are Appellants.

Appeal From Horry County

 J. Stanton Cross, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-002

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed January
11, 2010

AFFIRMED

William Isaac Diggs, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants.

J. Kershaw Spong, of Columbia and Larry Cohen, of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael S. Eidemiller and Martha
Eidemiller appeal the
master-in-equity's denial of their motion for relief from judgment under Rule
60(b), SCRCP.  They contend they were mistaken as to the consequences of
signing a document entitled "Consent
Master's Decree and Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale."  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Hillman v. Pinion, 347 S.C. 253, 256, 554 S.E.2d
427, 429 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[Rule 60(b)(1)] is an appropriate remedy for
good faith mistakes of fact if all other applicable factors are met.  However,
a party may not generally use Rule 60(b)(1) as a vehicle for relief from a
mistake of law."); Coleman v. Dunlap, 306 S.C. 491, 495, 413 S.E.2d
15, 17 (1992) (holding a party must show failure to avoid the alleged mistake
was justified); Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 663-64, 582
S.E.2d 432, 440 (Ct. App. 2003) (recognizing the well-settled proposition that a
party is charged with learning the contents of a document before he signs it); Hillman,
347 S.C. at 257, 554 S.E.2d at 429 (holding the "acts of an attorney are
directly attributable to and binding on his client"); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 385 S.C. 83, 93, 682 S.E.2d 857, 863 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the movant in a Rule 60(b) motion has the burden
of presenting evidence proving the facts essential to relief).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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