Scott v. Ford

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: May 8, 2019
• Docket: 2019-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• Status: Unpublished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

Taiwan R. Scott, Respondent,

v.

Ronald E. Ford and Sonya M. Ford, Defendants,

Of whom Sonya M. Ford is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000245

Appeal From Beaufort County Marvin H. Dukes, III, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-163 Submitted April 1, 2019 – Filed May 8, 2019

AFFIRMED

Sonya M. Ford, of Hilton Head, pro se.

Taiwan R. Scott, of Hilton Head, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Equivest Financial, LLC v. Ravenel, 422 S.C. 499, 506, 812 S.E.2d 438, 441 (Ct. App. 2018) ("When a party provides no legal authority regarding a particular argument, the argument is abandoned and the court will not address the merits of the issue."); Bryson v. Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority."); Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) ("[S]hort, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not presented for review."); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. M & T Enters. of Mt. Pleasant, LLC, 379 S.C. 645, 658, 667 S.E.2d 7, 14 (Ct. App. 2008) ("It is well settled that an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [master-in-equity] to be preserved for appellate review."); I'On, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) ("If the losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails to rule upon it, the party must file a motion to alter or amend the judgment in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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