June 5, 2013 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinions

H&H of Johnson, LLC v Old Republic Rational Title Company

H&H used an attorney for tis real estate closing that was also an agent of Old Republic and purchased a title insurance policy from Old Republic. H&H tried to sell some of the lots and had to settle claims form a developer and the homeowners association. It sued the attorney and Old Republic alleging an oral contract that would have allowed H&H to do the things which resulted in payment to the developer and association. The circuit court granted judgment to Old Republic and the attorney. The panel, with one judge dissenting in part, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. As to the attorney, the panel held the allegation in the complaint demonstrated the attorney was acting as such and offering legal advice at the closing. Thus, H&H was required to submit an affidavit by a licensed attorney detailing the legal negligence. As it failed to file the affidavit, judgment for the attorney was proper. The majority reversed on the contract claim holding the recorded contained enough evidence to create a genuine factual issue as to whether or not the contract came into force. The case was remanded for further proceeding. One judge dissented as tot eh contract issue arguing that even viewed in H&H favor, only showed actions by H&H, not any promise or act by the attorney or Old republic and thus summary judgment should have been affirmed.

Bank of America, NA v Draper

Bank through a series of assignments and mergers because the servicer of the mortgage and note secured by real property occupied by Draper. Draper stopped making payments and the then loan servicer sued for foreclosure. Draper moved to dismiss arguing that Bank lacked standing to sue and disputed some of the allegations in the affidavit bank field as part of its summary judgment motion. The master in equity found Bank had standing and granted it summary judgment. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held bank had standing to sue as it had a pecuniary interest in collecting payments under the mortgage and note. It reversed the grant of judgment in part holding that Bank proved the existence of the note and mortgage and the payments made and amounts owed, but, as there was dispute as to whether grass cutting and inspections were done, judgment on those particular damages were reversed and remanded.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s