LaSalle Bank v. Toney ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • 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
    LaSalle Bank National
    Association, trustee for Lehman
    Brothers Structured Asset
    Investment Loan Trust Sail
    2005-2,                           Respondent,
    v.
    Laura T. Toney a/k/a Laurie T.
    Toney and Deutsche Bank
    National Trust Company,           Defendants,
    Of whom Laura T. Toney a/k/a
    Laurie T. Toney is the            Appellant.
    __________
    Appeal From Orangeburg County
    Olin D. Burgdorf, Master-in-Equity
    __________
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-409
    Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed July 11, 2012
    __________
    AFFIRMED
    __________
    Laura T. Toney, pro se, of Bishopville.
    B. Rush Smith, III, Michael J. Anzelmo, and Betsy
    Polk, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Laura T. Toney appeals a master-in-equity's
    supplemental order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, arguing the master
    erred in failing to secure a court reporter for the foreclosure hearing and in
    violating her right to procedural due process. As to both of Toney's
    arguments, we affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: Herron v. Century BMW, 
    395 S.C. 461
    , 465, 
    719 S.E.2d 640
    , 642
    (2011) ("At a minimum, issue preservation requires that an issue be raised to
    and ruled upon by the trial [court]."); SSI Med. Servs., Inc. v. Cox, 
    301 S.C. 493
    , 499, 
    392 S.E.2d 789
    , 793 (1990) (holding an issue raised to the trial
    court was not preserved for review when the trial court never ruled upon the
    issue and the issue was never raised in an appropriate post-trial motion);
    Germain v. Nichol, 
    278 S.C. 508
    , 509, 
    299 S.E.2d 335
    , 335 (1983)
    ("Appellant has the burden of providing this [c]ourt with a sufficient record
    upon which this [c]ourt can make its decision.").
    AFFIRMED.
    PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-UP-409

Filed Date: 7/11/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024