Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanders

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

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ultimate Successor to First
Union National Bank, Respondent,

v.

Albert J. Sanders, Jr.; AJS Properties, LLC; Branch
Banking and Trust Company Ultimate Successor to
Southern National Bank of South Carolina; First
Palmetto Savings Bank, FSB, Defendants,

Of which Albert J. Sanders, Jr. and AJS Properties, LLC
are the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001161

Appeal From Lexington County
Lisa Lee Smith, Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-161
Submitted March 1, 2021 – Filed May 12, 2021

AFFIRMED

William Wesley Johnson, Jr., of Law Office of Wes
Johnson, of West Columbia, for Appellants.

Chad Wilson Burgess, of Brock & Scott, PLLC, Matthew
Todd Carroll, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
and Alan Martin Stewart, of Hutchens Law Firm, all of
Columbia; and Shelton Sterling Laney, III, of Womble
Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, of Greenville, all for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Albert J. Sanders appeals the special referee's order of
foreclosure and sale of Sanders's property. On appeal, Sanders argues the special
referee erred in ordering foreclosure because (1) Wells Fargo did not comply with
a 2009 Administrative Order1 from our supreme court prior to foreclosing on his
property and (2) Wells Fargo had unclean hands. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.

1. Sanders's argument that Wells Fargo failed to comply with the 2009
Administrative Order is not preserved for appellate review. See Holy Loch
Distribs., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) ("In order
to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must have been raised to and
ruled upon by the trial court."). Sanders did not argue Wells Fargo failed to
comply with the 2009 Administrative Order in his answer or during trial.
Although Sanders did testify regarding his desire to modify his mortgage, he did
not specifically challenge Wells Fargo's compliance with the 2009 Administrative
Order. See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998)
("Moreover, an objection must be sufficiently specific to inform the [special
referee] of the point being urged by the objector.").

2. Sanders's argument that Wells Fargo operated with unclean hands is not
preserved for appellate review. Although Sanders raised the issue of unclean
hands in his answer, he did not file a Rule 59(e) motion after the trial court failed
to rule on the issue. Additionally, Sanders did not argue the issue to the special
referee. See Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 733 ("It is axiomatic that
an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to
and ruled upon by the [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Elam
v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) ("A party must
file [a Rule 59(e)] motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled
on, in order to preserve it for appellate review.").

1
See In re Mortgage Foreclosures and the Home Affordable Modification
Program (HMP), 2009–05–22–01 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated May 22, 2009).
AFFIRMED.2

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.