Chisholm v. Chisholm

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 18, 2018
• Docket: 2018-UP-163
• Status: Unpublished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

William Barry Chisholm, Appellant,

v.

Susan Elaine Chisholm, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001708

Appeal From Greenville County Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-163 Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed April 18, 2018

AFFIRMED

William Barry Chisholm, of Greenville, pro se.

Susan Elaine Chisholm, of Mauldin, pro se.

PER CURIAM: William Chisholm appeals the master's order instructing Susan Chisholm to pay him $3,248.00, plus $653.25 in interest, arguing the master erred by (1) not allowing William to present his case and (2) believing Susan would not lie under oath. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to Issue 1: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565, 633 S.E.2d 505, 510 (2006) ("Generally, an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("Moreover, an objection must be sufficiently specific to inform the trial court of the point being urged by the objector."); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] to present to the court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not.").

2. As to Issue 2: Pye, 369 S.C. at 564, 633 S.E.2d at 510 ("It is well settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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