Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fallon Props. S.C., LLC, Appellate Case No. 2015-000157

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,successor-by-merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., Respondent, v. Fallon Properties South Carolina, LLC,Timothy R. Fallon, Susan C. Fallon,Fallon Luminous Products Corporation,GE Business Capital Corporation,formerly Transamerica Business Capital Corporation,FSD Repurchase Solutions, LLC,and South Carolina Department of Revenue, Defendants,Of Whom Fallon Properties South Carolina, LLC,Timothy R. Fallon, and Susan C. Fallon are the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000157

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-065

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Submitted January 1, 2019

February 13, 2019

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.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Gordon G. Cooper, Master-In-Equity

AFFIRMED

Alexander Hray, Jr., of Spartanburg, and Rodney F. Pillsbury, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Robert L. Widener, of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Columbia, and Weyman C. Carter, of McNair Law Firm, PA, of Greenville, both for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Fallon Properties South Carolina, LLC (Fallon Properties), Timothy R. Fallon, and Susan C. Fallon (the Fallons) appeal the master-in-equity's order denying their petition for an order of appraisal. The Fallons and Fallon Properties argue the master erred by finding they waived their appraisal rights because Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., failed to comply with the first prong of section 29-3-680(B) of the South Carolina Code (2007). We affirm¹ pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n v. Murray, 419 S.C. 605, 614, 799 S.E.2d 310, 315 (Ct. App. 2017) ("[This] court's standard of review in equitable matters is our own view of the preponderance of the evidence." (quoting Horry Cty. v. Ray, 382 S.C. 76, 80, 674 S.E.2d 519, 522 (Ct. App. 2009))); Ross v. Waccamaw Cmty. Hosp., 404 S.C. 56, 62, 744 S.E.2d 547, 550 (2013) ("Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which we are free to decide without any deference to the court below." (quoting Grier v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 397 S.C. 532, 535, 725 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2012))); Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) ("Whe[n] [a] statute's language is plain and unambiguous[] and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning."); § 29-3-680(B) ("[A] defendant against whom a personal judgment may be taken on a real estate secured transaction may waive the appraisal rights as provided by this section if the debtors, makers, borrowers, and/or guarantors are notified in writing before the transaction that a waiver of appraisal rights will be required . . . ."); Crystal Ice Co. of Columbia v. First Colonial Corp., 273 S.C. 306, 309, 257 S.E.2d 496, 497 (1979) ("It is well established that a principal is affected with constructive knowledge of all material facts of which his agent receives notice while acting within the scope of his authority."); Dorman v. Campbell, 331 S.C. 179, 185, 500 S.E.2d 786, 789 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding knowledge of the information contained in a letter sent to the appellants' attorney was imputed to the appellants); Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 663, 582 S.E.2d 432, 440 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A person who signs a contract or other written...