United States v. James Y. Fisher, II

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

United States of America, acting through the Rural
Housing Service, its successors and assigns, United
States Department of Agriculture, Appellant,

v.

James Y. Fisher, II, and Stacy C. Fisher a/k/a Stacy C.
Woodle a/k/a Stacy C. Contris, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000692

Appeal From Horry County
Alan D. Clemmons, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-258
Submitted May 21, 2026 – Filed June 3, 2026

AFFIRMED

Taylor Anthony Peace, of Harrell, Martin, & Peace, P.A.,
of Chapin, for Appellant.

James Y. Fisher, II and Stacy C. Fisher, both of Conway,
pro se.

PER CURIAM: United States of America, acting through the Rural Housing
Service or successor agency, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA),
appeals the master-in-equity's order granting judgment of foreclosure against
James Y. Fisher, II and Stacy C. Fisher (together, Respondents), and the master's
order denying reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the South Carolina Rules
of Civil Procedure. On appeal, USDA argues the master erred in (1) determining it
failed to meet its burden of proof regarding fees owed for property tax payments
and insurance payments (escrow fees); (2) sua sponte raising and relying upon
affirmative and other defenses not asserted by Respondents in reducing the amount
of debt owed; and (3) impermissibly altering the terms of the mortgage by reducing
the amount of escrow fees recoverable under the terms of the mortgage. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.1

As to issue one, we hold the master did not err in finding USDA failed to meet its
burden of proof regarding the escrow fees.2 See Hayne Fed. Credit Union v.
Bailey, 327 S.C. 242, 248, 489 S.E.2d 472, 475 (1997) ("A mortgage foreclosure is
an action in equity."); U.S. Bank Tr. Nat. Ass'n v. Bell, 385 S.C. 364, 373, 684
S.E.2d 199, 204 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In an appeal from an action in equity, tried by a
[court] alone, we may find facts in accordance with our own view of the
preponderance of the evidence."). We agree with the master that the evidence
presented by USDA failed to substantiate its request; therefore, we hold a
preponderance of the evidence supports the master's findings. See Bell, 385 S.C. at
373, 684 S.E.2d at 204 (noting the standard of review "does not require an
appellate court to disregard the findings below or ignore the fact that the [master]
is in the better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses" (quoting Pinckney
v. Warren, 344 S.C. 382, 387, 544 S.E.2d 620, 623 (2001))).

1
Respondents did not file a brief. This court may take any action it deems
proper—including reversal—when a respondent fails to timely file a brief. See
Rule 208(a)(4), SCACR ("Upon the failure of respondent to timely file a brief, the
appellate court may take such action as it deems proper."); Rule 220(c), SCACR
("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision[,] or judgment upon
any ground(s) appearing in the [r]ecord on [a]ppeal.").
2
Insofar as USDA argues the master erred in applying an incorrect burden of
proof, we need not address the issue because USDA did not prove its claims by a
preponderance of the evidence. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown,
Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating that if one of multiple
issues on appeal is dispositive, the appellate court need not reach remaining
issues).
As to issues two and three, we hold our disposition of issue one is dispositive;
therefore, we decline to address the remaining issues. See Futch, 335 S.C. at 613,
518 S.E.2d at 598 (stating that if one of multiple issues on appeal is dispositive, the
appellate court need not reach remaining issues).

AFFIRMED.3

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.