Legal Opinion
Glover v. Lewis
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided May 30, 1989No. 1344PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Cureton, Judge:
The basic issue presented in this mechanic’s lien foreclosure action is the kind of notice required to defeat the priority of a mortgage lien recorded subsequent to the accrual of an unrecorded mechanic’s lien. The trial court held the notice sufficient to defeat the priority of the mortgage lien. The mortgagee appeals. We reverse.
The foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien being a proceeding for the enforcement of a statutory lien is legal in nature. Adams v. B & D, Inc., 377 S. E. (2d) 315 (S. C. 1989); Metz v. Critcher, 83 S. C. 396, 65 S. E. 394 (1909); Karl Sitte Plumbing Co.,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kirton v. HowardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Williamson v. Hotel MelroseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1918
- Shelley Construction Co. v. Sea Garden Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1985
- Metz v. CritcherSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
- Adams v. B & D, INC.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dunes Hotel Associates v. Hyatt Corp. (In Re Dunes Hotel Associates)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 1995
- The Lite House, Inc. v. JC Roy Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1992
- T.W. Morton Builders Inc. v. Von BuedingenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1994
- Archie Bell Constraction Co. v. NormanCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1993
- Watson & Howell Builders v. BillingsleyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1992