Garrett v. Hunter

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 John J. Garrett, Appellant, v. Richard F. Hunter, Christine E. Hunter, and Jimmy Dean Justice, Respondents. Appeal From Spartanburg County Gordon G. Cooper, Master-In-Equity Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-555 Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 21, 2010 AFFIRMED John J. Garrett, pro se, of Reidville, for Appellant. Matthew Elliott Cox, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Richard F. Hunter, of Hickory, North Carolina, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: John J. Garrett appeals the master-in-equity's order finding he lacked standing to bring a foreclosure action against Richard and Christine Hunter. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Newman v. Richland Cnty. Historic Pres. Comm'n, 325 S.C. 79, 82, 480 S.E.2d 72, 74 (1997) ("Standing is 'a personal stake in the subject matter of a lawsuit.'" (quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 312 S.C. 454, 458, 441 S.E.2d 325, 327 (1994))); Midfirst Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., 893 F. Supp. 1304, 1318 (D.S.C. 1994) ("South Carolina recognizes the familiar and uncontroverted proposition that the assignment of a note secured by a mortgage carries with it an assignment of the mortgage." (quoting Hahn v. Smith, 157 S.C. 157, 161, 154 S.E. 112, 115 (1930) and Ballou v. Young, 42 S.C. 170, 177, 20 S.E. 84, 86 (1894))); S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Halter, 293 S.C. 121, 128, 359 S.E.2d 74, 77 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The assignment of a mortgage as distinct from the debt it secures is nugatory and confers no rights upon the transferee absent some indication that the parties also intended to transfer the debt." (internal citations omitted)). AFFIRMED. THOMAS, PIEPER, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.