Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Coffey

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 10, 2013No. Appellate Case No. 2010-174086; No. 27282Published

1Dissent

Justice PLEICONES:

I respectfully dissent and would remand the matter to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner (Wachovia) sought to recover the proceeds from respondent Coffey’s sale of the boat under several equitable theories: mortgage foreclosure, unjust enrichment, equitable mortgage, restitution, ratification, quantum merit, or quasi-contract. While the majority may well be correct that Wachovia’s foreclosure action fails because the purported mortgage was invalid, it is the unavailability of recovery under that cause of action that is the predicate for Wachovia’s other theories. In footnote…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McNair v. RainsfordCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1998
  2. MATRIX FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP. v. FrazerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
  3. Bac Home Loan Servicing, L.P. v. KinderSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API