Investment Associates v. Lancia

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
Investment Associates, Appellant,
v.
Joseph D. Lancia, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001917
Appeal from Greenville County
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-078
Submitted February 1, 2016 – Filed February 24, 2016
AFFIRMED
James G. Carpenter and Jennifer J. Miller, Carpenter Law
Firm, PC, both of Greenville, for Appellant.
W. Francis Marion, Jr. and Denny Parker Major,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, both of Greenville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Investment Associates seeks to enforce a judgment against
Joseph D. Lancia it obtained in Connecticut. It appeals the circuit court's order that
it cannot enforce the judgment in South Carolina, arguing the court erred because
(1) the statute of limitations in South Carolina Code section 15-3-600 (2005)
begins to run when a judgment is enrolled in South Carolina under the Uniform
Enforcement of Foreign Procedures Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-35-900 to -960
(2005), (2) Connecticut courts have validated Investment Associates' judgment
against Lancia, and (3) the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States
Constitution, U.S. Const. art. IV § 1, requires South Carolina to enforce a valid
Connecticut judgment. We affirm and find (1) whether the statute of limitations in
section 15-3-600 begins to run when a judgment is enrolled in South Carolina is
not preserved for appellate review and (2) the Full Faith and Credit Clause does
not require South Carolina to enforce the Connecticut judgment.
1. Whether the statute of limitations in section 15-3-600 begins to run when a
judgment is enrolled in South Carolina is not preserved for appellate review. See
I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724
(2000) ("[T]he losing party generally must both present his issues and arguments to
the lower court and obtain a ruling before an appellate court will review those
issues and arguments."); Malloy v. Thompson, 409 S.C. 557, 561, 762 S.E.2d 690,
692 (2014) ("At a minimum, issue preservation requires that an issue be raised to
and ruled upon by the trial judge. The issue must be sufficiently clear to bring into
focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood
by the judge." (citation omitted)).
2. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require South Carolina to enforce the
Connecticut judgment. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1 ("Full Faith and Credit shall be
given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every
other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in
which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect
thereof."); Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 235, 118
S.Ct. 657, 665, 139 L.E.2d 580, 593 (1998) ("Full faith and credit . . . does not
mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time,
manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments."); Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws § 118 (Am. Law Inst. 1971) ("A valid judgment rendered in a
State of the United States may be denied enforcement in a sister State if suit on the
judgment is barred by the sister State's statute of limitations applicable to
judgments.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.