Alvetta L. Massenberg v. Clarendon County Treasurer ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 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
    Alvetta L. Massenberg, Appellant,
    v.
    Clarendon County Treasurer, Clarendon County
    Delinquent Tax Collector, Blacktop Ventures, LLC,
    Respondents.
    Appellate Case No. 2020-001531
    Appeal From Clarendon County
    Joseph K. Coffey, Master-in-Equity
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-410
    Submitted November 1, 2022 – Filed November 16, 2022
    AFFIRMED
    John M. Bleecker, Jr., of Law Office of John M.
    Bleecker, Jr., of Charleston, and Albert Peter Shahid, Jr.,
    of Shahid Law Office, LLC, of Charleston, both for
    Appellant.
    Scott Franklin Talley, of Talley Law Firm, P.A., of
    Spartanburg, for Respondent Blacktop Ventures, LLC.
    William H. Johnson, of Johnson, DuRant & Nester, LLC,
    of Manning, for Respondents Clarendon County
    Treasurer and Clarendon County Delinquent Tax
    Collector.
    PER CURIAM: Alvetta Massenberg appeals the master-in-equity's denial of her
    action to set aside a delinquent tax sale of real property. On appeal, she argues
    Clarendon County did not follow the statutory requirements because it did not post
    the notice of levy in a conspicuous place on the property.
    A preponderance of the evidence supports the master's finding the notice was
    posted in a conspicuous place because it was posted on a relatively well-traveled
    road. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the
    following authorities: Smith v. Barr, 
    375 S.C. 157
    , 160, 
    650 S.E.2d 486
    , 488 (Ct.
    App. 2007) ("Our scope of review for a case heard by a Master permits us to
    determine facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the
    evidence."); 
    id.
     ("However, we are mindful that this scope of review does not
    require us to disregard the Master's factual findings because the Master saw and
    heard witnesses and was in a better position to judge their credibility and
    demeanor."); In re Ryan Inv. Co., 
    335 S.C. 392
    , 395, 
    517 S.E.2d 692
    , 693 (1999)
    ("Tax sales must be conducted in strict compliance with statutory requirements.");
    
    S.C. Code Ann. § 12-51-40
    (c) (Supp. 2022) (directing a county's delinquent tax
    collector to "take exclusive physical possession of the property against which the
    taxes . . . were assessed by posting a notice [of levy] at one or more conspicuous
    places on the premises" if the final notice of delinquent taxes is returned).
    AFFIRMED. 1
    GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2022-UP-410

Filed Date: 11/16/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024