Woods v. Breakfield

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
Mell Woods, Appellant,
v.
Robert H. Breakfield, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Reba P. Hinson, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2011-201066
Appeal From Chester County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-256
Submitted May 1, 2013 – Filed June 19, 2013
AFFIRMED
Mell Woods, of Lancaster, pro se.
B. Michael Brackett, of Moses & Brackett, PC, of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Mell Woods appeals the circuit court's order affirming the
probate court's denial of Woods's motion to remove the personal representative,
Robert H. Breakfield, for cause. Woods argues the circuit court erred in (1)
proceeding with the appeal without the entire record from the probate court as
required by section 62-1-308(b) of the South Carolina Code, (2) failing to remove
Breakfield because he lied under oath, and (3) failing to issue to Woods subpoenas
upon his request. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court erred in proceeding without the entire probate
court record: McCall v. Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4, 362 S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App. 1987)
(stating a complainant must show error and prejudice to be entitled to relief for a
procedural violation); Cox v. Cox, 290 S.C. 245, 248, 349 S.E.2d 92, 93-94 (Ct.
App. 1986) ("The burden is on [the appellant] to demonstrate the trial court
committed reversible error."); id. at 248, 349 S.E.2d at 94 (finding appellant was
not entitled to relief when he produced no evidence showing the trial court's
findings were incorrect or the alleged error prejudiced him); id. ("This [c]ourt will
not reward a party's recalcitrant and obstructionist conduct at trial by overturning
the decree for technical noncompliance with [a rule of civil procedure].").
2. As to the remaining issues: Cowburn v. Leventis, 366 S.C. 20, 41, 619 S.E.2d
437, 449 (Ct. App. 2005) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate
review, with few exceptions, it must be raised [to] and ruled upon by the trial
[court]."); id. ("When a trial court makes a general ruling on an issue, but does not
address the specific argument raised by a party, that party must make a Rule 59(e)
motion asking the trial court to rule on the issue in order to preserve it for
appeal."); I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716,
724 (2000) ("If the losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court
fails to rule upon it, the party must file a motion to alter or amend the judgment in
order to preserve the issue for appellate review.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.