American Equipment Leasing v. Bartels

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals American Equipment Leasing (a division of EAB Leasing, Corp.), Respondent, v. Bruce Bartels, Appellant. Appeal From Florence County B. Hicks Harwell, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-702 Submitted September 17, 2003 – Filed December 3, 2003 AFFIRMED Marvin P. Jackson, of Florence, for Appellant. Steven R. Anderson, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Bruce Bartels appeals the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of American Equipment. We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 56(c), SCRCP; South Carolina Prop. & Cas. Guar. Assoc. v. Yensen, 345 S.C. 512, 548 S.E.2d 880 (Ct. App. 2001) (Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. To determine whether any material facts exist, the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.); WDW Prop. v. City of Sumter, 342 S.C. 6, 10, 535 S.E.2d 631, 632 (2000) (“When an appeal involves stipulated or undisputed facts, an appellate court is free to review whether the trial court properly applied the law to those facts.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 36-9-201(a) (2003) (“[A] security agreement is effective according to its terms between the parties, against purchasers of the collateral and against creditors.); S.C. Code Ann. § 36-9-320(a) (2003) (“[A] buyer in the ordinary course of business . . . takes free of a security interest created by the buyer’s seller, even if the security interest is perfected and the buyer knows of its existence.”); See Pengues v. Warley, 14 S.C. 180 (1880) (A purchaser can take no greater right or title than his seller may convey.); United States v. Anders Contracting Co., Inc., 111 F. Supp. 700, 702 (1953) (Stating where a party only held possession of a truck under the provisions of a contract with a right to obtain title upon performance of the contract, title was retained by the seller. Also stating seller was protected by a contemporaneous lien and such rights as [the party] acquired were qualified and limited by the terms of seller’s contract executed before any property or property rights vested in that party.) AFFIRMED. HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.