Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-040 - Mallek v. Tangeman

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

Barry D. Mallek and Alice R. Mallek, Respondents,

v.

Delbert R. Tangeman, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-040
Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed January 14, 2005


AFFIRMED


Chris B. Roberts, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Donald C. Coggins, Jr., and Max Thomas Hyde, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Delbert R. Tangeman appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Barry and Alice Mallek on their breach of contract claim.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:  Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc., 320 S.C. 218, 464 S.E.2d 112 (1995), aff’g in result and vacating in part 316 S.C. 34, 446 S.E.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1994) (affirming court of appeals’ decision that directed verdict motion was not preserved for review because motion was not reviewed at the close of all the evidence, and vacating portion of court of appeals’ opinion that addressed merits of directed verdict); Freeman v. A & M Home Sales, Inc., 293 S.C. 255, 359 S.E.2d 532 (Ct. App. 1987) (ruling appellant’s failure to renew motion for directed verdict after all the evidence was in precluded this court’s review of its exceptions questioning the sufficiency of the evidence); see also Mize v. Blue Ridge Ry. Co., 219 S.C. 119, 129-30, 64 S.E.2d 253, 258 (1951) (stating an issue was not preserved even though the trial court explicitly approached the issue, because the appellant did not mention the issue in its directed verdict motion; the trial court’s discussion did “not have the effect of enlarging the grounds upon which said motion was made.”); Bayle v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 128-29, 542 S.E.2d 736, 742-43 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting 4 C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 219 (1993)) (“As a general rule, the objection in the trial court must have been made by the party who urges the error in the appellate court.”).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


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