Bank motion in South Carolina

2022See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 121-22 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 34

2022See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 121-22 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 34

2022See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 121-22 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 34

2022See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 121-22 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 34

2022See Martin v. Paradise Cove Marina, Inc., 348 S.C. 379, 384 , 559 S.E.2d 348, 351 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court."); Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 152 , 597 S.E.2d 793, 798-99 (2004) ("When the Supreme Court remits a case to the circuit court, the circuit court 'acquires jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and take any action consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.'" (citing Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412 , 414–15, 438 S.E.2d 248, 249-50 (1993))); Moore v. N. Am.

2022See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 121-22 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 34

2022See Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 121-22 , 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011) ("When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law"); Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 34

2022See Martin v. Paradise Cove Marina, Inc., 348 S.C. 379, 384 , 559 S.E.2d 348, 351 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court."); Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 152 , 597 S.E.2d 793, 798-99 (2004) ("When the Supreme Court remits a case to the circuit court, the circuit court 'acquires jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and take any action consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.'" (citing Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412 , 414–15, 438 S.E.2d 248, 249-50 (1993))); Moore v. N. Am.

2022See Martin v. Paradise Cove Marina, Inc., 348 S.C. 379, 384 , 559 S.E.2d 348, 351 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court."); Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 152 , 597 S.E.2d 793, 798-99 (2004) ("When the Supreme Court remits a case to the circuit court, the circuit court 'acquires jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and take any action consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.'" (citing Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412 , 414–15, 438 S.E.2d 248, 249-50 (1993))); Moore v. N. Am.

2022See Martin v. Paradise Cove Marina, Inc., 348 S.C. 379, 384 , 559 S.E.2d 348, 351 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court."); Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 152 , 597 S.E.2d 793, 798-99 (2004) ("When the Supreme Court remits a case to the circuit court, the circuit court 'acquires jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and take any action consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.'" (citing Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412 , 414–15, 438 S.E.2d 248, 249-50 (1993))); Moore v. N. Am.

2022See Martin v. Paradise Cove Marina, Inc., 348 S.C. 379, 384 , 559 S.E.2d 348, 351 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A question of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law for the court."); Parker v. Shecut, 359 S.C. 143, 152 , 597 S.E.2d 793, 798-99 (2004) ("When the Supreme Court remits a case to the circuit court, the circuit court 'acquires jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and take any action consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.'" (citing Muller v. Myrtle Beach Golf & Yacht Club, 313 S.C. 412 , 414–15, 438 S.E.2d 248, 249-50 (1993))); Moore v. N. Am.

2021See Bryant v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 342 S.C. 159, 165 , 536 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing that an appellate court will not reverse the master's denial of a motion to substitute absent an abuse of discretion).

2021See Bryant v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 342 S.C. 159, 165 , 536 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing that an appellate court will not reverse the master's denial of a motion to substitute absent an abuse of discretion).

2021See Rule 60(b)(5) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . ." (emphasis added)); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

2021See Rule 60(b)(5) ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . ." (emphasis added)); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613 , 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to dismiss Taylor's original counterclaim: Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. at 201-02 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the [circuit] court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint."); Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395 , 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to dismiss Taylor's original counterclaim: Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. at 201-02 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the [circuit] court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint."); Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395 , 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to dismiss Taylor's original counterclaim: Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. at 201-02 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the [circuit] court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint."); Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395 , 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to dismiss Taylor's original counterclaim: Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. at 201-02 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the [circuit] court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint."); Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395 , 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to dismiss Taylor's original counterclaim: Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. at 201-02 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the [circuit] court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint."); Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395 , 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to dismiss Taylor's original counterclaim: Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 201 , 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, a [party] may move to dismiss based on a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."); id. at 201-02 , 584 S.E.2d at 415 ("Generally, in considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the [circuit] court must base its ruling solely upon allegations set forth on the face of the complaint."); Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395 , 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007) ("In reviewing the

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to strike Taylor's additional counterclaims: Robinson v. Code, 384 S.C. 582, 585 , 682 S.E.2d 495, 496 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[T]he matter of striking from a pleading is largely within the discretion of the [circuit court]."); id. ("Thus, the grant of a motion to strike will not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion or error of law."); Rule 15(a), SCRCP ("A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before or within [thirty] days after a responsive pleading is served . . . [o]therwise a party may am

2018As to whether the circuit court erred in granting the Bank's motion to strike Taylor's additional counterclaims: Robinson v. Code, 384 S.C. 582, 585 , 682 S.E.2d 495, 496 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[T]he matter of striking from a pleading is largely within the discretion of the [circuit court]."); id. ("Thus, the grant of a motion to strike will not be reversed except for an abuse of discretion or error of law."); Rule 15(a), SCRCP ("A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before or within [thirty] days after a responsive pleading is served . . . [o]therwise a party may am

2017See Regions Bank v. Wingard Props., Inc., 394 S.C. 241, 253 , 715 S.E.2d 348, 355 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining equity "look[s] to the substance and intent of the parties, and give[s] a construction consistent with such intent"). 3.

2017See Regions Bank v. Wingard Props., Inc., 394 S.C. 241, 253 , 715 S.E.2d 348, 355 (Ct. App. 2011) (explaining equity "look[s] to the substance and intent of the parties, and give[s] a construction consistent with such intent"). 3.

2014Accordingly, the analysis of this case is controlled by rules of statutory construction. “ ‘Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we are free to decide without any deference to the court below.’ ” Grier v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 397 S.C. 532, 535 , 725 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2012) (quoting CFRE, L.L.C. v. Greenville County Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74 , 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011)).

2014Accordingly, the analysis of this case is controlled by rules of statutory construction. “ ‘Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we are free to decide without any deference to the court below.’ ” Grier v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 397 S.C. 532, 535 , 725 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2012) (quoting CFRE, L.L.C. v. Greenville County Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74 , 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011)).

2014Accordingly, the analysis of this case is controlled by rules of statutory construction. “ ‘Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we are free to decide without any deference to the court below.’ ” Grier v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 397 S.C. 532, 535 , 725 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2012) (quoting CFRE, L.L.C. v. Greenville County Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74 , 716 S.E.2d 877, 881 (2011)).

2013As to the grant of the Bank's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on Watkins's counterclaims for declaratory judgment and violation of South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act based on the unauthorized practice of law: Franklin v. Chavis, 371 S.C. 527, 535 , 640 S.E.2d 873, 877 (2007) ("There is no private right of action in South Carolina for the unauthorized practice of law." (citing Linder v. Ins.

2013As to the grant of the Bank's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on Watkins's counterclaims for declaratory judgment and violation of South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act based on the unauthorized practice of law: Franklin v. Chavis, 371 S.C. 527, 535 , 640 S.E.2d 873, 877 (2007) ("There is no private right of action in South Carolina for the unauthorized practice of law." (citing Linder v. Ins.

2013Claims Consultants, Inc., 348 S.C. 477, 96-97 , 560 S.E.2d 612, 622-23 (2002)); Hambrick v. GMAC Mortg.

2013Claims Consultants, Inc., 348 S.C. 477, 96-97 , 560 S.E.2d 612, 622-23 (2002)); Hambrick v. GMAC Mortg.

2012Whether the master correctly denied Appellant’s motion seeking to extend the time for discovery and to continue Bank’s motion for summary judgment Standard Of Review “When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP.” Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) (citation omitted).

2012Whether the master correctly denied Appellant’s motion seeking to extend the time for discovery and to continue Bank’s motion for summary judgment Standard Of Review “When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP.” Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) (citation omitted).

2008Co., 174 S.C. 150, 157 , 177 S.E. 24, 27 (1934).

2008Co., 174 S.C. 150, 157 , 177 S.E. 24, 27 (1934).

1989See Floyd v. Thornton, 220 S. C. 414, 68 S. E. (2d) 334 (1951); Thigpen v. Thigpen, 217 S. C. 322, 60 S. E. (2d) 621 (1950).