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 Court of Appeals
Case No. 1993-DR-10-6807, 1994-DR-10-6676
Marion Niemi Herridge, Inge Ginsberg and David Baron, Plaintiffs,
Van Keith Herridge, Defendant.
Case No. 1998-DR-10-4836
Inge Ginsberg, Appellant,
Van Keith Herridge, Respondent.
Case No. 1999-DR-10-0339
Van Keith Herridge, Respondent,
Inge Ginsberg and Marion Niemi, Defendants,
of whom Inge Ginsberg is, Appellant.
Appeal From Charleston County
Jack Alan Landis, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-134
Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed February 26, 2004
Ms. Inge Ginsberg, of New York, for Appellant.
Alexander B. Cash, of Charleston, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: Glasscock, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding short, conclusory statements made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not preserved for appellate review); see also First Sav. Bank v. McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding appellant was deemed to have abandoned issues on appeal, where he failed to provide any argument or supporting authority); R & G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg’l Transp. Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437, 540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding where no authority is cited and argument is brief and conclusory, issue is deemed abandoned).
GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.