M. McFall Babb v. Horry County

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 24, 2010
• Docket: 2010-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• Status: Unpublished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

M. McFall Babb, Appellant,

v.

Horry County, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Horry County
J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-163
Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 24, 2010   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Barbara Wilson Pratt, of Little River, for Appellant.

John Weaver, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  M. McFall Babb appeals the circuit court's affirmance of the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order denying a special residential tax assessment of four percent for the tax year 2003 on property known as 4668 River Road, Little River, South Carolina.  Babb argues: (1) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear his appeal due to his father's bankruptcy stay; (2) the ALC committed an error of law when it took judicial notice of Babb's family court records; and (3) the ALC's order is not supported by the evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction:  11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (2006) (stating the automatic stay of bankruptcy applies generally to actions and proceedings against the debtor and his property).

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred taking judicial notice of family court records:  I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) ("Imposing [the] preservation requirement on the appellant is meant to enable the lower court to rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments."); Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 119, 557 S.E.2d 693, 704 (Ct. App. 2001) ("As a general rule, an issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the court below to be preserved for appellate review.").

3. As to whether the ALC's order was supported by sufficient evidence: Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm'n, 321 S.C. 219, 226, 467 S.E.2d 913, 917 (1996) ("[T]he burden is on appellants to prove convincingly that the [ALC's] decision is unsupported by the evidence.").

AFFIRMED. 

SHORT, WILLIAMS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

---

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