Nationstar Mortgage v. Meisner

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
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Respondent,
v.
Rhonda Lewis Meisner, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-002694
Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-187
Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed April 27, 2016
AFFIRMED
Rhonda Meisner, of Blythewood, pro se.
Robert A. Muckenfuss, of McGuireWoods LLP, of
Charlotte, NC, and Magalie Arcure Creech, of Finkel
Law Firm LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Rhonda Lewis Meisner appeals the master's order and judgment
of foreclosure and sale, arguing the master erred in (1) granting summary judgment
in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar), (2) finding Nationstar had
standing to pursue foreclosure, (3) giving legal and tax advice, and (4) finding the
subject property was not Meisner's primary residence. We affirm.1
1. As to issues 1 and 2, we find the master did not err in ordering the foreclosure
and sale of Meisner's property because Meisner conceded the issue of summary
judgment, and in doing so, also conceded Nationstar had standing.2 See TNS Mills,
Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. 611, 617, 503 S.E.2d 471, 474 (1998) ("An
issue conceded in a lower court may not be argued on appeal."); S. Ry. Co. v.
Routh, 161 S.C. 328, 333, 159 S.E. 640, 642 (1930) (finding an issue conceded to
the circuit court cannot be argued on appeal).
2. As to issue 3, we find this issue is not preserved. See S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. M
& T Enters. of Mt. Pleasant, LLC, 379 S.C. 645, 658, 667 S.E.2d 7, 14 (Ct. App.
2008) ("It is well settled that an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by
the [trial] court to be preserved for appellate review."); Degenhart v. Knights of
Columbus, 309 S.C. 114, 118, 420 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1992) ("An issue on which the
[master] never ruled and which was not raised in post-trial motions is not properly
before this [c]ourt.").
3. As to issue 4, we find this issue was conceded to the master. See TNS Mills,
Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 331 S.C. at 617, 503 S.E.2d at 474 ("An issue
conceded in a lower court may not be argued on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2
We note Mesiner also raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction within her
argument on Nationstar's lack of standing; however, the master had the power to
hear an action in foreclosure. See Johnson v. S.C. Dep't of Prob., Parole, &
Pardon Servs., 372 S.C. 279, 284, 641 S.E.2d 895, 897 (2007) ("[S]ubject matter
jurisdiction refers to a court's constitutional or statutory power to adjudicate a
case."); Rule 53(b), SCRCP ("In . . . an action for foreclosure, some or all of the
causes of action in a case may be referred to a master . . . .").