Biondo v. Russell

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 12, 2014
• Docket: 2014-UP-394
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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 Biondo, Appellant,

v.

Crystal Russell, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001055

Appeal From Berkeley County A. E. Morehead, III, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-394 Submitted September 1, 2014 – Filed November 12, 2014

AFFIRMED

Michael Biondo, of Goose Creek, pro se.

H. Stanley Feldman, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Biondo appeals the family court's order dismissing his action for grandparent visitation of a minor child. On appeal, Biondo argues: (1) the family court erred in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his claim; (2) the family court erred in awarding attorney's fees; (3) he is entitled to the protections of the South Carolina Whistleblower Act; and (4) the family court should be reversed due to Crystal Russell's failure to file a respondent's brief. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to issue one: S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(33) (Supp. 2013) ("The family court has exclusive jurisdiction . . . to order visitation for the grandparent of a minor child where either or both parents of the minor child is or are deceased, or are divorced, or are living separate and apart in different habitats . . . ." (emphasis provided)).

2. As to issues two and three: Gartside v. Gartside, 383 S.C. 35, 43, 677 S.E.2d 621, 625 (Ct. App. 2009) ("But for a very few exceptional circumstances, an appellate court cannot address an issue unless it was raised to and ruled upon by the family court.").

3. As to issue four: Rule 208(a)(4), SCACR ("Upon the failure of respondent to timely file a brief, the appellate court may take such action as it deems proper.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.