McGuire v. McGuire ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • 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
    Michael McGuire, Appellant,
    v.
    Janet McGuire, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2012-212500
    Appeal From York County
    Jack A. Landis, Family Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-468
    Submitted November 1, 2013 – Filed December 18, 2013
    AFFIRMED
    J. Darrell Beckham, of Law Office of J. Darrell
    Beckham, LLC, of Prosperity, for Appellant.
    Michael Langford Brown, Jr., of Rock Hill, for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: Doe v. Doe, 
    370 S.C. 206
    , 212, 
    634 S.E.2d 51
    , 54 (Ct. App. 2006)
    ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first
    time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [family]
    court."); 
    id.
     ("Error preservation requirements are intended 'to enable the lower
    court to rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and
    arguments.'" (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 
    339 S.C. 406
    , 412, 
    529 S.E.2d 543
    , 546 (2000))); 
    id.
     ("Without an initial ruling by the [family] court, a
    reviewing court simply is not able to evaluate whether the [family] court
    committed error."); id. at 212, 634 S.E.2d at 54-55 ("Therefore, when an appellant
    neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue
    is not preserved for appellate review."); Great Games, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Rev.,
    
    339 S.C. 79
    , 85, 
    529 S.E.2d 6
    , 9 (2000) (holding a constitutional challenge was not
    preserved for appellate review when it was not ruled upon by the trial court and
    that omission was not raised in a motion for reconsideration).
    AFFIRMED.1
    HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2013-UP-468

Filed Date: 12/18/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024