THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
2005-CP-16-01144
Wachovia Bank, NA as successor in interest to Wachovia Mortgage Company and First Federal Savings Bank, Respondent,
v.
I. Fred Beckham, Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, individually, Falcon Unlimited, LP, Winn-Barr Homeowners Association, Inc., Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Nesbet Oil Company, First Select, Inc., General Electric Capital Corporation, Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Carolinas Medical Center, City Builders Service, Inc., Defendants,
Of whom: Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L Hofer, individually and Falcon Unlimited, LP, are Appellants,
AND
2005-CP-46-972, 983, 984, 986, 989, 1013, 1045, 1068, 1094, 1121, 1122
Ex Parte: Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, Appellant,
In Re: Wachovia Bank, NA as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank, Respondent,
v.
Falcon Unlimited, LP, Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc., Winn-Bar Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendants,
AND
2005-CP-46-973
Ex Parte: Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, Appellant,
In Re: Wachovia Bank, NA as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank, Respondent,
v.
Falcon Unlimited, LP, Samuel B. Fewell, Jr., Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc., Winn-Bar Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendants,
AND
2005-CP-46-1093
Ex Parte: Donald Lewis Hofer a/k/a Donald L. Hofer a/k/a D.L. Hofer, Appellant,
In Re: Wachovia Bank, NA as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank, Respondent,
v.
Falcon Unlimited, LP, Atlantic National Trust, LLC, Aurora Loan Services, Inc., Winn-Bar Homeowners Association, Inc., Cedar Villas Owners Association, Inc., Defendants.
Appeal From York County
Special Referee F. Craig Wilkerson
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-018
Submitted January 1, 2008 � Filed January
10, 2008���
DISMISSED
Mark Weston Hardee, of Columbia, for Appellants.
Weston Adams, III, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIUM: In this consolidated appeal of fourteen foreclosure actions, Donald Lewis Hofer (Hofer) and Falcon Unlimited, L.P. (Falcon) argue the special referee erred in dismissing Hofer from the proceedings.� We dismiss. [1]
FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hofer executed a note and mortgage to Wachovia Bank, NA (Wachovia), as successor in interest to First Federal Savings Bank. �The note and mortgage secured various properties in York County, South Carolina.� Hofer subsequently conveyed the properties to Falcon, the current owner of the properties. �In 1998, Wachovia initiated foreclosure proceedings against Hofer and Falcon (collectively �Appellants�). �Wachovia entered into a settlement agreement with Appellants in 2001.
On April 25, 2005, Wachovia brought the instant foreclosure actions. �Appellants answered, counterclaimed, and requested a jury trial.� Wachovia moved to dismiss Hofer from the case on the ground that he was not a required or necessary party.� By order dated January 25, 2006, the special referee dismissed Hofer from the proceedings. ��Appellants appeal.
LAW / ANALYSIS
The sole issue set forth in Appellants� brief states as follows:
The special referee�s orders [sic] dismissing Donald Lewis Hofer from these series of foreclosure cases were in error since Donald Lewis Hofer had submitted answers with counterclaims and he had asserted his right to a jury trial.
The argument section of Appellants� brief, however, nowhere addresses Hofer�s dismissal from the foreclosure proceedings.� We therefore decline to address this issue.� See First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (stating an appellant must provide authority and supporting arguments for his issue to be considered on appeal); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 99, 594 S.E.2d 485, 496 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue is deemed abandoned where argued in only a short conclusory statement); Fields v. Fields, 342 S.C. 182, 191 n.8, 536 S.E.2d 684, 689 n.8 (Ct. App. 2000) (deeming an issue abandoned where the appellant included the issue in the statement of issues on appeal but failed to argue the issue in the body of the brief).[2]
Appellants argue in their brief the special referee erred in dismissing Appellants� counterclaims.� This issue, however, is not set forth in the statement of issues on appeal; therefore, this issue is not preserved for our review.� See Rule 208(b)(1)(B), SCACR; Langehans v. Smith, 347 S.C. 348, 352, 554 S.E.2d 681, 683 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating the appellant�s brief must set forth an issue in the statement of issues on appeal to preserve the issue on appeal).� �
DISMISSED.
HUFF AND PIEPER, JJ. and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.�
[1]� We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
[2] We note Hofer�s dismissal was without prejudice.� The order states �Dismissal of Hofer from the case neither impedes foreclosure nor prejudices his ability to proceed in a separate action against the plaintiff for alleged personal claims.�