Ingomar Limited Partnership v. Eidemiller

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 Ingomar Limited Partnership, a Nevada Limited Partnership, Respondent, v. Michael S. Eidemiller a/k/a Michael Eidemiller, Martha Eidemiller, Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority, and the United States of America by and through the Internal Revenue Service, Defendants, Of Whom Michael S. Eidemiller a/k/a Michael Eidemiller and Martha Eidemiller are Appellants. Appeal From Horry County J. Stanton Cross, Jr., Master-in-Equity Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-002 Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed January 11, 2010 AFFIRMED William Isaac Diggs, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellants. J. Kershaw Spong, of Columbia and Larry Cohen, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Michael S. Eidemiller and Martha Eidemiller appeal the master-in-equity's denial of their motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), SCRCP. They contend they were mistaken as to the consequences of signing a document entitled "Consent Master's Decree and Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale." We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hillman v. Pinion, 347 S.C. 253, 256, 554 S.E.2d 427, 429 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[Rule 60(b)(1)] is an appropriate remedy for good faith mistakes of fact if all other applicable factors are met. However, a party may not generally use Rule 60(b)(1) as a vehicle for relief from a mistake of law."); Coleman v. Dunlap, 306 S.C. 491, 495, 413 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1992) (holding a party must show failure to avoid the alleged mistake was justified); Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 663-64, 582 S.E.2d 432, 440 (Ct. App. 2003) (recognizing the well-settled proposition that a party is charged with learning the contents of a document before he signs it); Hillman, 347 S.C. at 257, 554 S.E.2d at 429 (holding the "acts of an attorney are directly attributable to and binding on his client"); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 385 S.C. 83, 93, 682 S.E.2d 857, 863 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the movant in a Rule 60(b) motion has the burden of presenting evidence proving the facts essential to relief). AFFIRMED. HEARN, C.J., and SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.