CitiMortgage v. Johnson ( 2012 )

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
CitiMortgage, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Mary Lee Johnson and City of Dillon, Defendants,
Of whom Mary Lee Johnson is the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2011-194786
Appeal From Dillon County
Hubbard W. McDonald, Jr., Special Referee
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-510
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed September 5, 2012
AFFIRMED
Damon C. Wlodarczyk, of Riley, Pope, & Laney, LLC,
of Columbia, for Appellant.
Charles E. Curry, of Dillon, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: CitiMortgage, Inc. appeals the special referee's denial of its
foreclosure action, arguing the special referee erred in finding the secondary
evidence (1) was inadmissible and (2) was insufficient to meet the foreclosure
requirements. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the special referee erred in finding the secondary evidence
was not admissible: State v. Halcomb, 382 S.C. 432, 443, 676 S.E.2d 149, 154 (Ct.
App. 2009) ("In particular, the question of whether to admit evidence under the
'best evidence rule' is . . . addressed to the discretion of the trial court."); Rule
1002, SCRE (providing the original document should be entered into evidence);
Rule 1004, SCRE (establishing an exception to the original document requirement
and permitting other evidence of the original document to be admitted if "[a]ll
originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed
them in bad faith"); Vaught v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 250 S.C. 65, 68-69, 156
S.E.2d 627, 628-29 (1967) (holding the secondary evidence is only admissible
when "the primary evidence of the fact to be proved is satisfactorily shown to have
been lost or destroyed without the fault of the party desiring to prove the fact"
(emphasis added and citation omitted)).
2. As to whether the special referee erred in finding the secondary evidence
was insufficient to meet the foreclosure requirements: Futch v. McAllister Towing
of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an
appellate court need not address appellant's remaining issues when its
determination of a prior issue is dispositive).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.