Shirley Durden v. George Durden, III

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 19, 2009
• Docket: 2009-UP-524
• Status: Unpublished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

Shirley N. Durden, Respondent,

v.

George A. Durden, III, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Dorchester County
William J. Wylie, Jr., Family Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-524
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 19, 2009

---

AFFIRMED

---

George A. Durden, III, pro se, of Greenwood, for Appellant.

Bernard  Mack and David L. DeVane, both of Summerville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this domestic action, George A. Durden, III (Husband), pro se,  appeals the family court's order awarding Shirley N. Durden (Wife) 50% of Husband's self-only United States Government Civil Service Disability Retirement and attorney's fees.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the family court erred in denying Husband's motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP: Southeastern Hous. Found. v. Smith, 380 S.C. 621, 636, 670 S.E.2d 680, 688 (Ct. App. 2008) (explaining the decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court); Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215-16, 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating a party seeking to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) has the burden of presenting evidence entitling him to the requested relief). 

2.  As to whether the family court's order failed to comply with Rule 26(a), SCRCP: In re Michael H., 360 S.C. 540, 546, 602 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2004) (stating an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal). 

3.  As to whether the family court erred in considering and incorporating Husband and Wife's mediated agreement into the final decree of divorce: In re Care and Treatment of McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 239 (2001) (finding 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).   

4.  As to whether the family court violated Rule 26, SCRFC:  Staubes v. City of Folly Beach,  339 S.C. 406, 415, 529 S.E.2d 543, 547 (2000) (holding in order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court).

5.  As to whether the family court erred in: (1) awarding Wife attorney's fees; (2) accepting Wife's proposed order; and (3) inaccurately representing Husband and Wife's agreement on the division of marital property and assets:  Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review."); see also Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (explaining when a trial court makes a general ruling on an issue, but does not address the specific argument raised by the appellant and the appellant does not make a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument, the appellate court cannot consider the argument on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

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