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
ACMAR Group, Appellant,
Commerce Bank, N.A., Defendant,
Commerce Bank, N.A.,
C. Dave Davis, Respondent.
Appeal From Beaufort County
Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-508
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed November 18, 2010
James O. Hale, of Hilton Head Island, for Appellant.
C. Dave Davis, of Hilton Head Island, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The appeal arises from an order denying ACMAR Group's motion to enforce a judgment obtained in New Jersey. We affirm the master-in-equity's refusal to recognize the foreign judgment pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. Concerning whether ACMAR Group's service of the amended complaint was proper: New Jersey Court Rule 1:5-1(a) (providing "[i]n all civil actions, unless otherwise provided by rule or court order, . . . pleadings subsequent to the original complaint . . . shall be served . . . upon parties appearing pro se; but no service need be made on parties who have failed to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against such parties in default shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of original process") (emphasis added); Minorplanet Sys. USA Ltd. v. Am. Aire, Inc., 368 S.C. 146, 149, 628 S.E.2d 43, 45 (2006) (stating the validity of a foreign judgment must be determined by the laws of the state which rendered the judgment); id. (holding in an action at law, tried by a judge without a jury, the findings must be affirmed if there is any evidence to support them).
2. Concerning whether the master-in-equity erred in finding ACMAR Group failed to follow proper New Jersey procedure in obtaining default judgment: Hagood v. Sommerville, 362 S.C. 191, 199, 607 S.E.2d 707, 711 (2005) (stating the appellate court need not address additional issues when resolution of prior issue is dispositive).
SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.