Middleton v. Connery Properties

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 Supreme Court Tommy H. Middleton, Appellant, v. Connery Properties, Inc., Respondent. Appeal From Charleston County Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity Memorandum Opinion No. 2009-MO-036 Heard June 11, 2009 – Filed July 13, 2009 AFFIRMED Benjamin Goldberg, of Charleston, for Appellant. Kerry Koon, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: This is a direct appeal from an unsuccessful challenge to a real property delinquent tax sale held in Charleston County. We have carefully reviewed the record, and we conclude that the Master-in-Equity correctly found that Charleston County complied with section 12-51-40 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008). Even accepting Appellant’s non-compliance argument, we find no material violation of section 12-51-40 which resulted in any prejudice to Appellant or the owner of the property at the time of the delinquency, National Tax Assistance Corporation. See Snelgrove v. Lanham, 298 S.C. 302, 304, 379 S.E.2d 904, 905 (1989) (recognizing that in order to set aside a tax sale the county must commit a “material violation” of the tax sale statute). We concur in the analysis and conclusions set forth in the order of Judge Scarborough. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR. AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.