of fact for each factor if there is sufficient evidentiary support on the record for the finding of the lack of good cause.” Id. “A motion under Rule 55(c) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. Owens contends he has shown good cause for failing to answer the complaint. First, Owens argues Paddy misled him into believing Paddy had hired an attorney to answer the complaint on Owens’s behalf. Owens asserts he reasonably relied on Paddy’s representations because Paddy had his power of attorney, which allowed him to act on Owens’s behalf regarding the property. Owens argues he immediately hired an attorney when he learned Paddy did not file an answer on his behalf. Owens maintain to the factors outlined in Wham. See Wham, 298 S.C. at 465, 381 S.E.2d at 501-02 (<HOLDING>). Owens contends his motion for relief was
holding the master shall consider the following factors in deciding whether to grant relief from an entry of default 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 holding that an appellate court should not undertake to review whether a plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the only motion filed and the only motion on appeal was the trial courts grant of summary judgment holding that the court must balance these factors against one another and against the extent of the relief sought and movant bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief holding that in determining whether a discovery violation warrants the sanction of exclusion of evidence a court must look to whether the violation was substantial the timing of the violation the reason for the violation the degree of prejudice to the parties whether such prejudice may be cured by a postponement and the desirability of a continuance holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied