Ward v. Ashbaugh

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 18, 2015
Docket2015-UP-077
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ward v. Ashbaugh (Ward v. Ashbaugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward v. Ashbaugh, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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

Derick Ward, Appellant,

v.

Margaret H. Ashbaugh, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001622

Appeal From Florence County R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-077 Submitted January 1, 2015 – Filed February 18, 2015

AFFIRMED

Adam Protheroe and David Elliott Tait, both of South Carolina Legal Services, of Florence, for Appellant.

Karl A. Folkens and Louis David Nettles, both of Folkens Law Firm, P.A., of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Derick Ward appeals the circuit court's order affirming the magistrates court's issuance of a writ of ejectment, arguing the circuit court erred by: (1) finding the magistrates court had subject matter jurisdiction, (2) denying him substantive due process, and (3) denying him procedural due process. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Issue 1: S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-10(11) (2007) ("Magistrates have concurrent civil jurisdiction in the following cases: . . . (11) in any action to recover the possession of personal property claimed, the value of which, as stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney, does not exceed the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars . . . ."); Brockbank v. Best Capital Corp., 341 S.C. 372, 379, 534 S.E.2d 688, 692 (2000) ("A mobile home usually is classified as personal property.").

2. As to Issues 2 and 3: Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) ("At a minimum, issue preservation requires that an issue be raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court]."); id. ("Constitutional arguments are no exception to the preservation rules, and if not raised to the [circuit] court, the issues are deemed waived on appeal."); I'On, L.L.C. 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 McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

I'On, L.L.C. v. Town of Mt. Pleasant
526 S.E.2d 716 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Brockbank v. Best Capital Corp.
534 S.E.2d 688 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Herron v. CENTURY BMW
719 S.E.2d 640 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ward v. Ashbaugh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-ashbaugh-scctapp-2015.