Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-186 - East Bay Company, Ltd. v. Baxley Commercial Properties, LLC

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

East Bay Company, Ltd., as successor in interest to Regions Bank, Respondent,

v.

Baxley Commercial Properties, LLC, a North Carolina Limited liability company; Co-Realty, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company; Lowcountry Endodontics, P.A., a South Carolina Proffessional associtation; CMM Properties, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company; Christos M. Maltezos a/k/a Christos M. Maltezos; Park West Master Association Inc., a South Carolina non-profit corporation;  and Atrium Builders, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, Defendants,

of whom Atrium Builders, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company is Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
 Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity


Unpublished Opinion No.    2011-UP-186
Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 25, 2011


APPEAL DISMISSED


James E. Weatherholtz and James M. Wilson, both of Charleston, for Appellant.

Mark S. Sharpe, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this mortgage foreclosure action, Atrium Builders (Atrium) argues the Master-in-Equity erred in making certain findings of fact and conclusions of law in his final order.  Specifically, Atrium contends the master erred because his findings and conclusions that no agreement existed between Atrium and Regions Bank (Regions) may have a preclusive effect in a separate action Atrium filed against Regions.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Baber v. Greenville Cnty., 327 S.C. 31, 44-45, 488 S.E.2d 314, 321 (1997) (finding mandamus issue not ripe for appellate review because it had not been presented to the Tax Commission); Pee Dee Elec. Co-op. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 279 S.C. 64, 66, 301 S.E.2d 761, 762 (1983) (noting an issue that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract is not ripe for review); Park v. Safeco Ins. Co., 251 S.C. 410, 414, 162 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1968) ("The courts generally decline to pronounce a declaration in a suit wherein the rights of the plaintiff are contingent upon the happening of some event which cannot be forecast and which may never take place.").

DISMISSED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.