New Residential Mortgage v. Todd S. Crawford ( 2023 )

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
New Residential Mortgage, LLC,
v.
Todd S. Crawford, Tricia L. Crawford, William T.
Geddings, Jr., Jane U. Geddings, and USAA Federal
Savings Bank,
Of Whom William T. Geddings, Jr., and Jane U.
Geddings are the Appellants/Respondents,
and
New Residential Mortgage, LLC is the
Respondent/Appellant,
and
USAA Federal Savings Bank is the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2020-001490
Appeal From Sumter County
Kristi F. Curtis, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-368
Submitted October 2, 2023 – Filed November 15, 2023
APPEAL DISMISSED
Andrew S. Radeker, of Harrison, Radeker & Smith, P.A.,
of Columbia, for Appellants/Respondents.
Jonathan E. Schulz and G. Benjamin Milam, both of
Bradley Arant Coult Cummings, LLP, of Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Respondent/Appellant New
Residential Mortgage, LLC.
William S. Bingham, of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP,
of Atlanta, Georgia, for Respondent USAA Federal
Savings Bank.
PER CURIAM: William T. Geddings, Jr. and Jane U. Geddings (collectively, the
Geddings) appeal, and New Residential Mortgage, LLC cross-appeals, the circuit
court's order dismissing two of the Geddings' counterclaims without prejudice and
with leave to amend and denying New Residential Mortgage's motion to dismiss a
third counterclaim for unjust enrichment. 1 We dismiss the appeal and conditional
cross-appeal in this case, finding both are interlocutory and unappealable, pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 240(j), SCACR ("Any
review of an order issued by an individual judge or justice shall be by petition for
rehearing."); Rule 240(i), SCACR ("The court will not entertain petitions for
rehearing on a motion or petition unless the action of the court on the motion or
petition has the effect of dismissing or finally deciding a party's appeal."); Olson v.
Fac. House of Carolina, Inc., 344 S.C. 194, 212, 544 S.E.2d 38, 47-48 (Ct. App.
2001) ("Unpublished orders by a single judge of this court are not binding on this
[c]ourt."), aff'd, 354 S.C. 161, 580 S.E.2d 440 (2003); Collins v. Sigmon, 299 S.C.
464, 465-66, 385 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1989) (reversing a prior determination by the
court that the matter on appeal was appealable and dismissing the appeal when the
circuit court's order permitted amendment of the pleadings); Schein v. Lamar, 284
S.C. 252, 255, 325 S.E.2d 573, 574-75 (Ct. App. 1985) (dismissing the appeal of
an order demurring in part as to a first amended complaint because a second
amended complaint had been filed and therefore became the operative pleading in
the case rendering the prior findings moot); Douglass ex rel. Louthian v. Boyce,
1
The Geddings filed an amended answer and counterclaims, including a request
for a jury trial, the same day it filed a notice of appeal with this court.
336 S.C. 318, 323, 519 S.E.2d 802, 805 (Ct. App. 1999) ("A judgment on the
pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer.").
APPEAL DISMISSED. 2
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.