Garrett v. Hunter

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

John J. Garrett, Appellant,

v.

Richard F. Hunter,
Christine E. Hunter, and Jimmy Dean Justice, Respondents.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Gordon G. Cooper, Master-In-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-555

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 21, 2010   

AFFIRMED

John J. Garrett, pro se, of Reidville, for Appellant.

Matthew Elliott Cox, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Richard F.
Hunter, of Hickory, North Carolina, for Respondents.

PER
CURIAM: John J. Garrett appeals the master-in-equity's order finding he
lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Richard and Christine
Hunter. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Newman v.
Richland Cnty. Historic Pres. Comm'n, 325 S.C. 79, 82, 480 S.E.2d 72,
74 (1997) ("Standing is 'a personal stake in
the subject matter of a lawsuit.'" (quoting Bailey v. Bailey,
312 S.C. 454, 458, 441 S.E.2d 325, 327 (1994))); Midfirst
Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co.,  893 F. Supp. 1304,
1318 (D.S.C. 1994) ("South Carolina recognizes the familiar and
uncontroverted proposition that the assignment of a note secured by a mortgage
carries with it an assignment of the mortgage." (quoting Hahn v. Smith,
157 S.C. 157, 161, 154 S.E. 112, 115 (1930) and Ballou v. Young, 42 S.C.
170, 177, 20 S.E. 84, 86 (1894))); S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Halter, 293 S.C. 121,
128, 359 S.E.2d 74, 77 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The assignment of a mortgage
as distinct from the debt it secures is nugatory and confers no rights upon the
transferee absent some indication that the parties also intended to transfer
the debt." (internal citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED. 

THOMAS, PIEPER, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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