Legal Opinion · Dissent

WeSAV Financial Corp. v. Lingefelts

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided November 30, 1992No. 1903Published

1DissentGoolsby, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I see no reason at all to remand the case so that Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) can be substituted for WeSav Financial Corporation. The judgment should be affirmed.

The case relied on by the majority for its holding that the case should be remanded, Insurance Comm’n v. New South Life Ins. Co., 270 S.C. 612, 244 S.E. (2d) 289 (1978), is not applicable here. New South involved the special circumstance of an insurance company, not a finance company, that was under a plan of rehabilitation. Moreover, New South was being sued by its alter ego. Also, New South, unlike…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of SCSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  2. Wright v. WilloughbySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
  3. Roberts v. Dunbar Funeral HomeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
  4. Insurance Commission Ex Rel. Lindsay v. New South Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  5. Cousar v. Heath, Witherspoon & Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908

1 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