Palmer v. Grove

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
Ernestine N. Palmer, as Trustee of the Article IV Trust
created under the Will of Mary Denman Newman,
deceased; Ronald O. Palmer, and Ernestine N. Palmer, as
Trustee of the Article IV Trust created under the Will of
James E. Newman, deceased; Respondents,
v.
Hatcham Grove, Inc., and David H. Lucas, Appellants.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002451
Appeal From Lee County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-169
Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed April 6, 2016
AFFIRMED
Magalie Arcure Creech, of Finkel Law Firm, LLC, of
Charleston, for Appellants.
Kyle B. Parker, of Pope & Hudgens, PA, of Newberry,
for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the circuit court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of Respondents. The circuit court granted summary judgment on
Appellants' claim Respondents violated section 37-10-102 of the South Carolina
Code (Attorney Preference Statute) during the execution of a mortgage loan
between the parties. Appellants argue the circuit court improperly granted
summary judgment because Respondents did not satisfy their statutory burden by
showing they substantially complied with the Attorney Preference Statute by
ascertaining Appellants' preferred representative legal counsel prior to the
mortgage closing. We find the Attorney Preference Statute inapplicable to the
underlying loan transaction. Accordingly, we affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court
may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing
in the Record on Appeal."); S.C. Code Ann. § 37-10-102 (2015) (stating a lender
must ascertain the borrower's attorney preference prior to the closing of a loan
"secured in whole or in part by a lien on real estate," when the primary purpose of
the loan is for a "personal, family or household purpose" (emphasis added)).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.