Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Oskin v. Johnson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 7, 2012No. 27187Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Hearn

Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. While I ultimately agree with the majority that the Statute of Elizabeth cannot be invoked to set aside this assignment, I believe the majority adopts too narrow a view of the statute in the process. Furthermore, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Robert Oskin, Glenn Small, and Freddie Kanos (collectively, Appellants), have not shown that J. Conner, LLC was the alter-ego of Michael Brown. I would therefore hold that J. Conner’s payment to South Carolina Bank and Trust (SCB & T) satisfied the note and mortgage.

*403I

I first turn to the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Colleton County Taxpayers Ass'n v. School District of Colleton CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
  2. Gibson v. LoveSupreme Court of Florida · 1851
  3. Drury Development Corp. v. Foundation InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2008
  4. Gay v. AriailSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
  5. Mid-South Management Co. v. Sherwood Development Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007

7 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