The Palmetto Bank v. Cardwell ( 2012 )

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 Court of Appeals
The Palmetto Bank, Respondent,
v.
Walter T. Cardwell, Jr., Coach Hills Homeowner's
Association, Inc., United States of America, Defendants,
Of whom Walter T. Cardwell, Jr. is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-192887
Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master in Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-504
Submitted September 4, 2012 – Filed September 5, 2012
AFFIRMED
Dr. Walter T. Cardwell, Jr., of Greenville, pro se.
F. Marion Hughes and M. Kevin McCarrell, of Smith
Moore, Leatherwood, LLP, of Greenville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the Master erred in denying Cardwell's motion to restore the
case to the trial roster: S.C. Code Ann. § 32-3-10(4) (2007) (requiring contracts
related to an interest in land to be in writing to be enforceable); Player v. Chandler,
299 S.C. 101, 105, 382 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1989) ("[A] contract required to be in
writing by the South Carolina Statute of Frauds cannot be orally modified.").
2. As to whether Cardwell was improperly surprised by evidence, whether
Palmetto Bank committed perjury, whether Palmetto Bank's attorney engaged in
misconduct, and whether the Master erred in failing to provide clear instructions
regarding legal procedures: Webb v. CSX Transp., Inc., 364 S.C. 639, 655, 615
S.E.2d 440, 449 (2005) (finding there must be a contemporaneous objection to
evidence to preserve an issue for appellate review); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First
Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) ("It is well
settled that an issue may not be raised for the first time in a post-trial motion."); id.("[I]t is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but
must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for
appellate review." (internal quotation marks omitted)).1
AFFIRMED.2
FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
1
There is no evidence to support Cardwell's contention he was prevented from
conducting discovery; accordingly, it is without merit.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.