US Bank v. Bebout

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
US Bank National Association as Successor Trustee to
Bank of America National Association, Successor by
merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee
for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-3XS,
Respondent,
v.
Barbara E. Bebout; Robert A. Swayngham a/k/a Robert
Alec Swayngham; Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MIN# 1001419-0060908012-1); The
Peoples National Bank, Defendants & Third Party
Plaintiffs,
of whom Barbara E. Bebout and Robert A. Swayngham
are Appellants,
v.
Americash Mortgage Corporation, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-211187
Appeal From Pickens County
R. Murray Hughes, III, Special Referee
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-171
Submitted December 1, 2013 – Filed April 16, 2014
AFFIRMED
J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellants.
Thomas E. Lydon, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie,
LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent US Bank National
Association.
Louis H. Lang, of Callison Tighe & Robinson, LLC, of
Columbia, for Respondent Americash Mortgage
Corporation.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether Americash Mortgage Corporation afforded Barbara E. Bebout
and Robert A. Swayngham (collectively Borrowers) a meaningful opportunity to
have the attorney of their choice represent them in all matters of their mortgage
transaction: Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12-13, 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009)
("The [s]pecial [r]eferee, as trier of fact, has the task of assessing the credibility,
persuasiveness, and the weight of the evidence presented. In an action at law, this
[c]ourt must affirm the factual findings of the [s]pecial [r]eferee unless no evidence
reasonably supports those findings. In reviewing an action tried at law, it is not the
place of this [c]ourt to substitute its own view as to the facts." (citations omitted)).
2. As to Borrowers' remaining issues: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d
486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) ("'An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is
deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.'" (quoting
Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P'ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App.
1993))).
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.