Hamilton v. Scott ( 2017 )

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
Gernaris Hamilton, Appellant,
v.
Henry Scott, Sr., Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-002039
Appeal From Charleston County
J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-059
Submitted December 1, 2016 – Filed January 25, 2017
AFFIRMED
Gernaris Hamilton, of Ladson, pro se.
Bruce Alan Berlinsky, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Gernaris Hamilton sued Henry Scott, Sr. in magistrate's court,
alleging unlawful ouster and unlawful withholding of a security deposit. The
magistrate held a nonjury hearing and granted judgment for Scott. The circuit
court affirmed, and Hamilton now appeals to this court. We affirm1 pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to whether the magistrate erred in finding Scott had a right to enter the premises
without a writ of ejectment: S.C. Code Ann. § 27-40-530(d)(4) (2007) (permitting
a landlord to enter a leased residence if "the tenant has abandoned or surrendered
the premises").
As to whether the magistrate erred in proceeding with a nonjury trial even though
Scott had previously requested a jury trial: Talley v. S.C. Higher Educ. Tuition
Grants Comm., 289 S.C. 483, 487, 347 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1986) ("It is an axiomatic
rule of law that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal."); Tupper v.
Dorchester Cty., 326 S.C. 318, 324 n.3, 487 S.E.2d 187, 190 n.3 (1997) ("[An]
appellant cannot bootstrap an issue for appeal by way of [another party's]
objection.").
As to whether the magistrate should have continued the matter when Hamilton's
attorney left the magistrate's court before commencement of the hearing: Talley,
289 S.C. at 487, 347 S.E.2d at 101 ("It is an axiomatic rule of law that issues may
not be raised for the first time on appeal."); In re Care and Treatment of Corley,
365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Constitutional issues,
like most others, must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved
for appeal.").
As to whether the evidence supported the magistrate's rulings: S.C. Code Ann. §
18-7-170 (2014) (stating the standard of review to be applied by the circuit court
when reviewing a magistrate's judgment); Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352,
357, 315 S.E.2d 179, 183 (Ct. App. 1984) (acknowledging "the [c]ourt of [a]ppeals
will presume that an affirmance by a [c]ircuit [c]ourt of a magistrate's judgment
was made upon the merits where the testimony is sufficient to sustain the judgment
of the magistrate and there are no facts that show the affirmance was influenced by
an error of law").
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.