Case Name: ATLAS SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Howard P. DAVIS, Anne A. Davis, and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Orangeburg, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1979-07-12
Citations: 273 S.C. 392
Docket Number: 21003
Parties: ATLAS SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Howard P. DAVIS, Anne A. Davis, and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Orangeburg, Respondents.
Judges: Littlejohn, J., concurs in result.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 273
Pages: 392–397

Head Matter:
21003
ATLAS SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Howard P. DAVIS, Anne A. Davis, and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Orangeburg, Respondents.
(256 S. E. (2d) 859)
Levi & Wittenberg, Sumter, for appellant.
C. Walker Limehouse, Orangeburg, for respondent First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Orangeburg.
Bryant, Fanning & Yarborough, Orangeburg, for respondents Davis et al.
July 12, 1979.

Opinion:
Lewis, Chief Justice:
Appellant holds a recorded judgment lien and respondent, First Federal Savings and Loan Association (First Fed eral), holds a recorded mortgage lien over real property owned by respondents Howard P. and Annie A. Davis. This action was brought to determine which lien had priority. Appeal is from an order of the lower court, concurring in the finding of the special referee, that the mortgage lien had priority over the judgment lien. The facts have been stipulated and are not in dispute.
Appellant's judgment was obtained on June 21, 1973 on an open account contracted between April 30, 1971 and December 28, 1972. It was filed for record on June 25, 1973, at 9:58 a.m. It is properly indexed in the Abstract of Judgment books with a notation "See Roll." Reference to the Judgment Roll shows the foregoing hour and day of filing.
The mortgage held by First Federal was executed on June 25, 1973, and filed for record on that date at 11:59 a. m., about 'two hours after the filing of appellant's judgment. The mortgage is properly indexed and recorded, showing the foregoing hour and day of filing.
Although the record shows that the judgment was filed for record about two hours prior to the filing of the mortgage, this would not affect the result, as is shown by the controlling decision of Prudential Insurance Company v. Wadford, 232 S. C. 476, 102 S. E. (2d) 889 (1958). At the time of the Wadford decision, Section 30-7-10 of the 1976 Code of Laws (then Section 60-101) provided, in pertinent part, that "all deeds . all mortgages . or other liens on real or personal property, or both, created by law or by agreement of the parties . . . shall be valid so as to affect the rights of the subsequent creditors . . . only from tire day and hour when they are recorded . . ."
In Wadford, a judgment creditor relied upon the foregoing section to establish priority over a subsequently recorded mortgage. The mortgage was executed on May 21, 1954, as security for the mortgagor's obligation of the same date. It was recorded on June-24, 1954. The judgment was entered of record on May 24, 1954, prior to the recording of the mortgage, and was obtained in an action against the mortgagor on an account for merchandise purchased prior to May 21, 1954, the date of the mortgage obligation. The Court, in Wadford, following an earlier decision in Carraway v. Carraway, 27 S. C. 576, 5 S. E. 157, held:
. . . the recording statute was intended to protect against the lien of an unrecorded mortgage, persons who, without notice of it, subsequent to its execution might reasonably have extended credit to the mortgagor, or purchased the mortgaged property, in reliance upon his apparently unencumbered ownership, . . .; and that a creditor who between the date of the execution of the mortgage and the date of its record entered judgment against the mortgagor on an obligation that had been created prior to the date of the mortgage was not within the protection of the statute because his extension of credit to the mortgagor was antecedent, not subsequent, to the execution of the mortgage.
The subsequently recorded mortgage was held to have priority over the earlier recorded judgment in Wadford., As in Wadford, the debt upon which the judgment in this case was entered was antecedent to the creation of the mortgage obligation. As such, appellant's judgment is not within the protection of the statute, and the lower court correctly so held.
Appellant argues, however, that the foregoing conclusion overlooks the fact that shortly after the Wadford decision Section 30-7-10 (former Section 60-101), supra, was amended by adding the following proviso:
Provided, however, that in case of a subsequent purchaser of real estate, or in the case of a subsequent lien creditor on real estate or personal property or both, for valuable consideration without notice, the instrument evidencing such subsequent conveyance or subsequent lien must be filed for record in order for its holder to claim under this section as a subsequent creditor or purchaser for value without notice, and the priority shall be determined by the time of filing for record. (Emphasis added.)
Appellant argues that the above proviso repudiated the holding in Wadford and points specifically to the emphasized language. In addition to Wadford, the case of South Carolina National Bank v. Guest, 232 S. C. 367, 102 S. E. (2d) 215, was decided in early 1958 and shortly before the adoption of the amendment in question to Section 30-7-10. We agree with the trial judge that the 1958 amendment was an attempt to correct the result reached in the Guest case, where two mortgages which were created the same day and recorded on a subsequent day resulted .in a ruling in favor of the second mortgagee although the first bank had recorded first; and did not alter "the basic concept and structure of the recordation statute as protecting subsequent creditors rather than one whose original debt was antecedent in time to the mortgage obligation."
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
Littlejohn, J., concurs in result.