Zimmerman v. Marsh

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 17, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-662
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Steven J. Zimmerman & Sarah M. Zimmerman,        Respondents,

v.

Vicki Lane Marsh,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Georgetown County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Master-In-Equity

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-662
Submitted September 17, 2003 – Filed November 17, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Robert H. Gwin, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Robert H. O’Donnell, of Georgetown, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Steven J. Zimmerman and Sarah M. Zimmerman brought this action seeking partition by sale of property they owned jointly with Vicki Lane Marsh.  Marsh requested the property be allotted to her.  Finding partition by allotment not feasible under the circumstances, the master-in-equity ordered partition by sale and set forth the credits to be allowed to each of the parties.  Marsh appeals.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and the following authorities:

Issue I.:  S.C. Code Ann. § 15-61-10 (1976) (partition is compellable by a cotenant as a matter of right); Pinckney v. Atkins, 317 S.C. 340, 345, 454 S.E.2d 339, 342 (Ct. App. 1995) (stating a partition procedure must be fair and equitable to all parties of the action); Few v. Few, 242 S.C. 433, 441, 131 S.E.2d 248, 252 (1963) (stating partition in kind or by allotment may be resorted to only when it can be fairly and impartially made and without injury to any of the parties in interest); Pruitt v. Pruitt, 298 S.C. 411, 414, 380 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 1989) (“[Di]sparate testimony as to the value of the subject property requires partition by public sale, which will afford each party an opportunity to back her own judgment of value by bidding for the interest of the other.”). 

Issue II:  Holy Loch Distrib., Inc. v. Hitchcock, 340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) (stating in order to preserve issue for appellate review issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge);  Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289, 311, 486 S.E.2d 750, 761 (1997) (holding issue not preserved for appellate review where appellants failed to object to the cost issue either at the hearing or in their motion to alter or amend the order). 

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.