FEDERAL FINANCIAL CO. v. HARTLEY

No. 26554.

380 S.C. 65 (2008)

668 S.E.2d 410

FEDERAL FINANCIAL COMPANY, a general partnership, Respondent, v. Carol D. HARTLEY, individually and as trustee for the Daniel Wayne Hartley (a/k/a D. Wayne Hartley) Trust; Anita Beth Hartley, individually and as Trustee for the Daniel Wayne Hartley (a/k/a D. Wayne Hartley) Trust; Daniel Wayne Hartley (a/k/a D. Wayne Hartley); South Carolina Employment Security Commission; Charleston County Business License User Fee Dept.; Kenneth Smith d/b/a Servpro of North Charleston; Alliance Mortgage Company; Lori A. Hartley; Kenneth W. Day; Wachovia Bank, National Association; Thomas B. Daniels (a/k/a Thomas Daniels); and John Doe and Mary Roe, fictitious names used to designate all other defendants whose names are unknown, and persons in the military service within the meaning of Title 50, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, as amended, if any, and the widows, widowers, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors, and assigns, firms or corporations of any of the defendants who may be deceased, and any and all other persons claiming any right, title estate, interest in or lien upon the Complaint or any part thereof, Defendants, Of whom Carol D. Hartley, individually and as trustee for the Daniel Wayne Hartley (a/k/a D. Wayne Hartley) Trust; Anita Beth Hartley, individually and as Trustee for the Daniel Wayne Hartley (a/k/a D. Wayne Hartley) Trust; Daniel Wayne Hartley (a/k/a D. Wayne Hartley); and Thomas B. Daniels (a/k/a Thomas Daniels) are unknown heirs at law, devisees, Appellants.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Decided October 13, 2008.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David K. Haller, of Haller Law Firm, of Charleston, and Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., of The Richter Law Firm, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants.

Merrill Anthony Cox, of Cox Law Firm, of Goose Creek, for Appellants.

Timothy A. Domin, of Charleston, for Respondent.


Justice PLEICONES:

Respondent brought this declaratory judgment action to determine the validity of its mortgage, and the priority of its mortgage and one given by appellant Daniels on property owned by appellant Hartley.1 Hartley and Daniels appeal a master's order finding respondent's mortgage is valid, and has priority over Daniel's mortgage. We reverse.

FACTS

Respondent held a mortgage on property owned by...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases