Hammer v. Hammer ( 2013 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Shirley Hammer, Respondent,
v.
Howard Hammer, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-203087
Appeal From Richland County
John M. Rucker, Family Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-004
Submitted February 5, 2013 – Filed February 13, 2013
AFFIRMED
Howard Hammer of Columbia, Pro Se Appellant.
Timothy E. Madden of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Issues 1 through 13: Where an appellant fails to provide arguments or
supporting authority with regard to an issue on appeal, the issue is deemed
abandoned and will not be considered on appeal. First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314
S.C. 361, 444 S.E.2d 513 (1994); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 640 S.E.2d 486 (Ct.
App. 2006); Arnal v. Arnal, 363 S.C. 268, 609 S.E.2d 821 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d as
modified 371 S.C. 10, 636 S.E.2d 864 (2006); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78,
594 S.E.2d 485 (Ct. App. 2004); Fields v. Fields, 342 S.C. 182, 536 S.E.2d 684(Ct. App. 2000). An issue is also deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is
not supported by authority or is only conclusory. State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48, 543
S.E.2d 541 (2001); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 684 S.E.2d 191 (Ct. App. 2009);
State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 213, 682 S.E.2d 42 (Ct. App. 2009); Pack v. S.C. Dept.
of Transp., 381 S.C. 526, 673 S.E.2d 461 (Ct. App. 2009); Bryson v. Bryson, 378
S.C. 502, 662 S.E.2d 611 (Ct. App. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,
concur.