Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Prescott ( 2017 )

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
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent,
v.
Delores Prescott and Wells Fargo Financial Bank (SD),
Defendants,
Of Whom Delores Prescott is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2015-000349
Appeal From Sumter County
Richard L. Booth, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-046
Submitted December 1, 2016 – Filed January 25, 2017
AFFIRMED
Delores Prescott, of Parlin, New Jersey, pro se.
Shelton Sterling Laney, III, of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, LLP, of Greenville, and Matthew
Todd Carroll, of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, of Columbia, both for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Delores Prescott appeals the master-in-equity's grant of summary
judgment to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in a foreclosure proceeding, arguing the
master (1) erred in finding she abandoned the subject property during a bankruptcy
proceeding, (2) misapplied the doctrines of judicial estoppel, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel, (3) incorrectly refused to allow her to proceed on an amended
answer and additional counterclaims, and (4) erred in finding she filed a sham
affidavit when responding to Wells Fargo's summary judgment motion. We
affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to the master's finding that Prescott abandoned the subject property during
her bankruptcy action: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 564, 633 S.E.2d 505,
510 (2006) ("It is well settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [lower] court to be
preserved.").
2. As to whether the master erred in relying on res judicata in prohibiting Prescott
from proceeding on certain defenses and counterclaims: Plum Creek Dev. Co. v.
City of Conway, 334 S.C. 30, 34, 512 S.E.2d 106, 109 (1999) ("Res judicata bars
subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those
parties."); id. (providing res judicata bars a litigant from raising issues that could
have been raised in the prior lawsuit as well as issues actually litigated in the prior
lawsuit); Venture Eng'g, Inc. v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of S.C., 360 S.C. 156, 163,
600 S.E.2d 547, 550 (Ct. App. 2004) ("When a bankruptcy court's order is
erroneous, it is correctable only through the federal court and, under the
circumstances, the trial court and this court are required to accept the bankruptcy
court's order as it was rendered and entered.").
3. As to Prescott's arguments concerning judicial estoppel, collateral estoppel, and
the statute of limitations: Dwyer v. Tom Jenkins Realty, Inc., 289 S.C. 118, 120,
344 S.E.2d 886, 888 (Ct. App. 1986) (stating when a decision is based on two
grounds, either of which can support it independently of the other, the decision will
be affirmed whether or not the other ground is correct).
4. As to whether the master erred in finding Prescott submitted a sham affidavit:
Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210, 218, 592 S.E.2d 629, 633 (2004) (allowing a
court to disregard a subsequent affidavit as a "sham" if submitted by a party to
contradict his or her own prior sworn statement); McMaster v. Dewitt, 411 S.C.
138, 144, 767 S.E.2d 451, 454 (Ct. App. 2014) (noting South Carolina has adopted
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing whether a lower court properly
rejected an affidavit as a sham).
AFFIRMED.
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.