Glover v. Tavernier

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Glover v. Tavernier

DecidedFebruary 14, 2006

Docket2006-UP-092

StatusUnpublished

This text of Glover v. Tavernier (Glover v. Tavernier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glover v. Tavernier, (S.C. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis Appellants,

v.

Kurt Tavernier Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County
J.C. Buddy Nicholson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-092
Submitted February 1, 2006 Filed February 14, 2006

AFFIRMED

Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis, of Anderson, Pro Se for Appellants.

Kurt Tavernier, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis brought suit against attorney Kurt Tavernier to recover fees paid to Tavernier to represent Glover during post-conviction relief proceedings. Glover and Davis appeal from the trial judges order dismissing their action and referring it to the South Carolina Fee Dispute Board. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: Issue I: Ex Parte McMillan, 319 S.C. 331, 335, 461 S.E.2d 43, 45 (1995) (issue conceded in trial court cannot be argued on appeal); Issue II: The trial judge did not dismiss Davis from the action. Issue III: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.); Summer v. Carpenter, 328 S.C. 36, 43, 492 S.E.2d 55, 58 (1997) (where the trial judge did not rule on the issue at trial and the party did not make a Rule 59, SCRCP, motion for a ruling, the issue is not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis Appellants,

v.

Kurt Tavernier Respondent.

Appeal From Anderson County
J.C. Buddy Nicholson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-092
Submitted February 1, 2006 Filed February 14, 2006

AFFIRMED

Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis, of Anderson, Pro Se for Appellants.

Kurt Tavernier, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis brought suit against attorney Kurt Tavernier to recover fees paid to Tavernier to represent Glover during post-conviction relief proceedings. Glover and Davis appeal from the trial judges order dismissing their action and referring it to the South Carolina Fee Dispute Board. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: Issue I: Ex Parte McMillan, 319 S.C. 331, 335, 461 S.E.2d 43, 45 (1995) (issue conceded in trial court cannot be argued on appeal); Issue II: The trial judge did not dismiss Davis from the action. Issue III: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.); Summer v. Carpenter, 328 S.C. 36, 43, 492 S.E.2d 55, 58 (1997) (where the trial judge did not rule on the issue at trial and the party did not make a Rule 59, SCRCP, motion for a ruling, the issue is not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glover v. Tavernier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-v-tavernier-scctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack