Strauss v. Strauss

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: May 7, 2007
• Docket: 2007-MO-028
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Catherine R. Strauss, by and through Jo Ann Stone, Co-Guardian, and next friend, Appellant,

v.

Robert Strauss, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Florence County
 Mary E. Buchan, Family Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2007-MO-028
Submitted May 1, 2007 – Filed May 7, 2007

---

AFFIRMED

---

Jan L. Warner and Matthew E. Steinmetz, both of Warner Payne & Black, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Nancy H. Bailey, of Florence, and Marian D. Nettles, of Nettles, Turbeville & Reddeck, of Lake City, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  This is an appeal from an order of the family court dismissing this action for separate support and maintenance, alimony and equitable division on the grounds that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the facts of the case and that appellant was not the proper party to bring the action, as co-guardian, on behalf of her mother, who was incompetent at the time.  While this appeal was pending, appellant’s mother passed away.  Thereafter, appellant moved for substitution of a party.  By order dated March 7, 2007, we dismissed the appeal as moot.  Appellant has now filed a petition for rehearing.  We reinstate the appeal, but deny appellant’s motion for substitution of a party.  In addition, we affirm the family court’s dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issues I – V: S.C. Code Ann. § 62-5-312(a)(4) (1987); Rule 17(c) and (d)(2), SCRCP; Ulmer v. Ulmer, 369 S.C. 486, 632 S.E.2d 858 (2006)(an unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case); Anderson v. Short, 323 S.C. 522, 476 S.E.2d 475 (1996)(where the ruling of the trial judge is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless appellant appeals all grounds); Murray by Murray v. Murray, 310 S.C. 336, 426 S.E.2d 781 (1993); Wilson v. Ball, 337 S.C. 493, 523 S.E.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE and BURNETT, JJ., concur. WALLER and PLEICONES, JJ., not participating.