SunTrust Mortgage v. Ostendorff ( 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
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Mark Ostendorff, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2010-150386
Appeal From York County
S. Jackson Kimball, Special Circuit Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-608
Heard October 30, 2012 – Filed November 14, 2012
AFFIRMED
Mark Ostendorff, Appellant pro se.
Brian Steed Tatum, of Tatum Law Firm, PLLC, of
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent SunTrust
Mortgage Inc.
PER CURIAM: In this mortgage foreclosure case, Appellant Mark Ostendorff
seeks review of the circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Respondent
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. on Ostendorff's counterclaim for breach of contract. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to the circuit court's conclusion that SunTrust was entitled to suspend
construction draws as a matter of law: Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate
court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s)
appearing in the Record on Appeal."); Hardee v. Hardee, 355 S.C. 382, 387,
585 S.E.2d 501, 503 (2003) ("The judicial function of a court of law is to
enforce a contract as made by the parties, and not to rewrite or to distort,
under the guise of judicial construction, contracts, the terms of which are
plain and unambiguous."); Charles v. Canal Ins. Co., 238 S.C. 600, 608, 121
S.E.2d 200, 205 (1961) ("[T]he function of courts is to adjudge and enforce
contracts as they are written and entered into by the parties.").
2. As to whether the issues of fact asserted by Ostendorff precluded summary
judgment: Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any
ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the
Record on Appeal."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary
judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" (emphasis
added)); In re Walter M., 386 S.C. 387, 392, 688 S.E.2d 133, 136 (Ct. App.
2009) ("Generally, an issue must be both raised to and ruled upon by the
trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review.").
3. As to whether SunTrust's failure to provide Ostendorff with certain
discovery responses precluded summary judgment: Dawkins v. Fields, 354
S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 439 (2003) ("[T]he nonmoving party must
demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional
relevant evidence.").
4. As to Ostendorff's challenge to the jurisdiction of the special circuit judge:
Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689,
691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without
supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not
presented for review."); State v. Colf, 332 S.C. 313, 322, 504 S.E.2d 360,
364 (Ct. App. 1998), aff'd as modified, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000)
("An issue is also deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is merely
conclusory.").
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.