Filed: Apr. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2014
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether Americash Mortgage Corporation afforded Barbara E. Bebout and Robert A. Swayngham (collectively Borrowers) a meaningful opportunity to have the attorney of their choice represent them in all matters of their mortgage transaction: Jones v. Leag
Summary: 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), SCARC. PER CURIAM. Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether Americash Mortgage Corporation afforded Barbara E. Bebout and Robert A. Swayngham (collectively Borrowers) a meaningful opportunity to have the attorney of their choice represent them in all matters of their mortgage transaction: Jones v. Leaga..
More
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), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether Americash Mortgage Corporation afforded Barbara E. Bebout and Robert A. Swayngham (collectively Borrowers) a meaningful opportunity to have the attorney of their choice represent them in all matters of their mortgage transaction: Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 12-13, 681 S.E.2d 6, 12 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The [s]pecial [r]eferee, as trier of fact, has the task of assessing the credibility, persuasiveness, and the weight of the evidence presented. In an action at law, this [c]ourt must affirm the factual findings of the [s]pecial [r]eferee unless no evidence reasonably supports those findings. In reviewing an action tried at law, it is not the place of this [c]ourt to substitute its own view as to the facts." (citations omitted)).
2. As to Borrowers' remaining issues: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) ("`An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.'" (quoting Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P'ship, 312 S.C. 102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993))).
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
