Kelly v. Rachels

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: May 20, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-287
• Status: Unpublished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

Kathleen M. Kelly, Respondent,

v.

James P. Rachels, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Lexington County
 Kellum W. Allen, Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-287
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010

---

AFFIRMED

---

James P. Rachels, pro se, of Ridgecrest, California, for Appellant

James W. Corley, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   James P. Rachels (Husband) appeals the family court's declaratory judgment requiring him to personally pay Kathleen M. Kelly (Wife) $423.50 per month plus cost of living adjustments from his military retired pay.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in finding Wife had standing to bring a declaratory judgment action: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("[A]n 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.").

2. As to whether the family court erred in reforming the parties' agreement to require Husband to personally remit payment to Wife: Heins v. Heins, 344 S.C. 146, 158, 543 S.E.2d 224, 230 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Where an agreement is clear and capable of legal interpretation, the court's only function is to interpret its lawful meaning, discover the intention of the parties as found within the agreement, and give effect to it.").

3. As to whether the family court erred in awarding Wife $423.50 per month plus cost of living adjustments: Steffenson v. Olsen, 360 S.C. 318, 322, 600 S.E.2d 129, 131 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If an agreement is clear and unambiguous, its terms should be applied according to their plain and ordinary meaning and consideration of extrinsic evidence to alter that meaning is improper.").   

AFFIRMED.

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

---

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