Indus., Inc., 383 S.C. 601, 607, 681 S.E.2d 885, 888 (2009). “Once a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default, the trial court must also consider: (1) the timing of the motion for relief; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) the degree of prejudice to the plaintiff if relief is granted.” Id. at 607-08, 681 S.E.2d at 888 (citing Wham v. Shearson Lehman Bros., Inc., 298 S.C. 462, 465, 381 S.E.2d 499, 501-02 (Ct.App.1989)). “The trial court need not make specific , he had a meritorious defense, and the Bank would not be prejudiced. Because we find the master did not err in finding Owens failed to show good cause for failing to answer the complaint, we need not consider the Wham factors. See Sundown, 383 S.C. at 607-08, 681 S.E.2d at 888 (<HOLDING>); Dixon v. Besco Eng’g, Inc., 320 S.C. 174,
holding that the jury need only decide the ultimate issue of intentional discrimination and usually need not make findings on the prima facie case or whether the defendants explanation is pretextual holding appellate court need not consider argument where party has failed to support it with any authority legal or otherwise holding that once a trial court has set a date for a summaryjudgment hearing the court must allow the nonmoving party an opportunity to be heard holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause holding a court need only consider the wham factors once a party has put forth a satisfactory explanation for the default