Legal Opinion · Dissent

MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP. v. Frazer

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 8, 2011No. 26859Published

1Dissent

*141Justice PLEICONES.

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the master’s order equitably subrogating Matrix’s refinanced mortgage to its original mortgage, and would not impose the draconian remedy of denying equitable relief to lenders who “fail[ ... ]to have attorney supervision during the loan process as required by law.”

A. Equitable Subrogation

Equitable subrogation is a remedy favored by the courts, and it is to be liberally and expansively applied. So. Bank and Trust Co. v. Harrison Sales Co., Inc., 285 S.C. 50, 328 S.E.2d 66 (1985). The doctrine:

is founded on the fictional premise that an…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. MiddleportSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Bank of America, NA v. Prestance Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Bank of America v. Prestance Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Dedes v. StricklandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
  5. Enterprise Bank v. Federal Land BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API