Opinion ID: 1236472
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: necessity of remand

Text: The trial judge ruled that even if the Agreement created a security interest, thereby triggering Article 9, Debtor was divested of the Article 9 rights and remedies when he purportedly abandoned the home. We agree with the parties that the issue of whether Debtor's alleged abandonment of the home divested him of his Article 9 rights was raised to and ruled on by the trial judge. The Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case for lower court to decide the issue. See Hudson v. Hudson, 290 S.C. 215, 349 S.E.2d 341 (1986) (remand is unnecessary where trial court properly found it had jurisdiction and already had ruled on post-trial motions). Consequently, we directed the parties to brief the final issue.