Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-546 - Reaves v. Reaves

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

Willie D. Reaves,        Respondent,

v.

Franklin C. Reaves,        Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-546
Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed October 27, 2004


AFFIRMED


Franklin C. Reaves, Appellant, Pro Se.

Willie D. Reaves, Respondent, Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:  Franklin C. Reaves appeals from a bench warrant the family court issued upon his alleged failure to appear as directed by a Rule to Show Cause and his failure to pay alimony.  The bench warrant ordered that Reaves must pay his account current and court costs on or before his release.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  Watson v. Watson, 319 S.C. 92, 93, 460 S.E.2d 394, 395 (1995) (“Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong.”); Coon v. Coon, 356 S.C. 342, 588 S.E.2d 624, 628 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating that as a general rule where there is no lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court’s judgment will be binding, even if affected by irregularity which would have defeated the proceeding if objection had been timely and properly made); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 629 576 S.E.2d 156, 165 (2003) (“Objections to personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, are waived unless raised.”); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating a constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 


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