Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-092 - Glover v. Tavernier

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

Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis Appellants,

v.

Kurt Tavernier Respondent.


Appeal From Anderson County
 J.C. “Buddy” Nicholson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-092
Submitted February 1, 2006 – Filed February 14, 2006  


AFFIRMED


Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis, of Anderson, Pro Se for Appellants.

Kurt Tavernier, of Anderson,  for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:    Tekoa Glover and Brenda Davis brought suit against attorney Kurt Tavernier to recover fees paid to Tavernier to represent Glover during post-conviction relief proceedings.  Glover and Davis appeal from the trial judge’s order dismissing their action and referring it to the South Carolina Fee Dispute Board.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  Issue I:  Ex Parte McMillan, 319 S.C. 331, 335, 461 S.E.2d 43, 45 (1995) (“issue conceded in trial court cannot be argued on appeal”); Issue II:  The trial judge did not dismiss Davis from the action.  Issue III: 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.”); Summer v. Carpenter, 328 S.C. 36, 43, 492 S.E.2d 55, 58 (1997) (where the trial judge did not rule on the issue at trial and the party did not make a Rule 59, SCRCP, motion for a ruling, the issue is not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and STILWELL, JJ., concur. 


[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.