Hammer v. Hammer

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 Supreme Court

Shirley Hammer, Respondent,

v.

Howard Hammer, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-203087

Appeal From Richland County John M. Rucker, Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-004 Submitted February 5, 2013 – Filed February 13, 2013

AFFIRMED

Howard Hammer of Columbia, Pro Se Appellant.

Timothy E. Madden of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issues 1 through 13: Where an appellant fails to provide arguments or supporting authority with regard to an issue on appeal, the issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal. First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 444 S.E.2d 513 (1994); Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 640 S.E.2d 486 (Ct.

App. 2006); Arnal v. Arnal, 363 S.C. 268, 609 S.E.2d 821 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d as modified 371 S.C. 10, 636 S.E.2d 864 (2006); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 594 S.E.2d 485 (Ct. App. 2004); Fields v. Fields, 342 S.C. 182, 536 S.E.2d 684 (Ct. App. 2000). An issue is also deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only conclusory. State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48, 543 S.E.2d 541 (2001); Butler v. Butler, 385 S.C. 328, 684 S.E.2d 191 (Ct. App. 2009); State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 213, 682 S.E.2d 42 (Ct. App. 2009); Pack v. S.C. Dept. of Transp., 381 S.C. 526, 673 S.E.2d 461 (Ct. App. 2009); Bryson v. Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 662 S.E.2d 611 (Ct. App. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.