Filed: Dec. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2011
Summary: Not to be Published PER CURIAM: Marina Ventures, Inc. and Pioneer Properties, Inc. appeal the appointment of a receiver to sell property in satisfaction of a mortgage, arguing (1) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a receiver; (2) even if the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, the appointment was improper; (3) laches and adverse adjudication bar the appointment of a receiver; and (4) a presumption of payment arises from the creditors' repeated abandonme
Summary: Not to be Published PER CURIAM: Marina Ventures, Inc. and Pioneer Properties, Inc. appeal the appointment of a receiver to sell property in satisfaction of a mortgage, arguing (1) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a receiver; (2) even if the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, the appointment was improper; (3) laches and adverse adjudication bar the appointment of a receiver; and (4) a presumption of payment arises from the creditors' repeated abandonmen..
More
Not to be Published
PER CURIAM:
Marina Ventures, Inc. and Pioneer Properties, Inc. appeal the appointment of a receiver to sell property in satisfaction of a mortgage, arguing (1) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a receiver; (2) even if the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction, the appointment was improper; (3) laches and adverse adjudication bar the appointment of a receiver; and (4) a presumption of payment arises from the creditors' repeated abandonment of a foreclosure action. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to appoint a receiver: S.C. Code Ann. § 15-65-10(4) (2005) (providing the circuit court may appoint a receiver "when a corporation has been dissolved, is insolvent, or in imminent danger of insolvency . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-65-10(1) (2005) (providing the circuit court may appoint a receiver before judgment when the applicant shows the property is in "danger of being lost or materially injured or impaired" and the applicant has a right to that property in the possession of an adverse party).
2. As to the remaining issues: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) (holding issues and arguments are only preserved for review when they are raised to and ruled on by the circuit court); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court are not preserved for appellate review); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. M & T Enter., 379 S.C. 645, 658-59, 667 S.E.2d 7, 15 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Without an initial ruling by the . . . [circuit] court, a reviewing court simply would not be able to evaluate whether the . . . [circuit] court committed error."); Knight v. Waggoner, 359 S.C. 492, 496, 597 S.E.2d 894, 896 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding arguments made for first time on appeal are not preserved for review).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
