M&T Bank v. Tyrone Davis ( 2022 )

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
Leticia, LLC, Movant,
In Re:
M&T Bank, Plaintiff,
v.
Tyrone Davis; Bobby J. Bellamy; BC Fund and
Management LLC d/b/a BC Fund, LLC, Defendants.
And
M&T Bank, Respondent,
v.
Tyrone Davis, Bobby J. Bellamy, BC Fund and
Management, LLC d/b/a BC Fund, LLC, Defendants,
Of whom Bobby J. Bellamy is the Appellant,
And
Tyrone Davis is the Respondent.
And
Bobby J. Bellamy, Appellant,
v.
William O. Smith, Third Party Defendant.
Appellate Case No. 2019-001682
Appeal From Horry County
Cynthia Graham Howe, Master-in-Equity
Ralph P. Stroman, Special Referee
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-146
Submitted February 1, 2022 – Filed March 23, 2022
AFFIRMED
Bobby J. Bellamy, of Little River, pro se.
Kirby Darr Shealy, III and W. Cliff Moore, III, both of
Adams and Reese LLP; John Brian Kelchner, of Turner
Padget Graham & Laney, PA.; Ashley Zarrett Stanley, of
Hutchens Law Firm; and Stephanie M. Huggins, of Riley
Pope & Laney, LLC, all of Columbia, for Respondent
M&T Bank.
Daniel Quigley Orvin and Matthew Tillman, both of
Womble Bond Dickinson LLP, of Charleston, for
Respondent Tyrone Davis.
PER CURIAM: Bobby J. Bellamy appeals (1) the Master-in-Equity's report on
sale and disbursements from a foreclosure sale—in which Leticia, LLC, was the
purchaser—and (2) the special referee's writ of assistance to remove other parties
from the foreclosed property (the Property). Bellamy argues the master was unable
to convey the Property to Leticia, LLC, because (1) the master's Report on sale and
disbursement did not comply with South Carolina law because the bidding did not
reopen on the thirtieth day after the sale; (2) the master erred in reforming the
deeds in the chain of the title without inquiring further into potential defects or
adverse claims in the public record that raised red flags about the quit claim deed
of Bellamy's transfer to BC Fund LLC; (3) the circuit court erred in dismissing his
counterclaim for civil conspiracy; (4) the master erred in reforming the quit claim
deed because BC Fund and Management, LLC was required to use its legal name
in all aspects of business or register a doing-business-as name; and (5) the circuit
court erred in allowing M&T Bank to amend its complaint to seek reformation of
the name on the deeds from BC Fund LLC to BC Fund and Management, LLC
d/b/a BC Fund LLC. We affirm.
Bellamy failed to serve Leticia, LLC, with the notice of appeal of the writ of
assistance, which declared Leticia, LLC, was entitled to possession of the
foreclosed property and ordered Bellamy be removed from the Property. This
ruling is now the law of the case. See Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR (stating the notice
of appeal in a civil action must be served on all respondents within thirty days
following the receipt of written notice of the entry of the order or judgment); Elam
v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 14, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004) (stating the
requirement of service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Judy v. Martin, 381
S.C. 455, 459, 674 S.E.2d 151, 153 (2009) (stating "an unappealed ruling becomes
the law of the case and precludes further consideration of the issue on appeal").
Accordingly, this case is moot because this court is unable to grant Bellamy the
relief he seeks. See Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C. 528, 535, 670 S.E.2d
663, 667 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An appellate court will not pass judgment on moot and
academic questions; it will not adjudicate a matter when no actual controversy
capable of specific relief exists."); id. ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if
rendered, will have no practical legal effect upon the existing controversy.").
AFFIRMED.1
GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.