Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-120 - Squirewell Builders v. Frederick
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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


Squirewell Builders, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Samuel A. Frederick and Marylin Frederick, Appellants.


Appeal From Richland County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-120
Heard February 8, 2006 – Filed February 24, 2006


AFFIRMED


Paul Winford Owen, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellants. 

Heath Preston Taylor, of West Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this mechanic’s lien case a jury awarded Squirewell Builders $56,500, plus attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest in payment for work performed in constructing the Frederick’s home.  The Fredericks appeal on several grounds.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 102, 594 S.E.2d 485, 498 (Ct. App. 2004) (“It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review.”); State v. Addison, 338 S.C. 277, 284-85, 525 S.E.2d 901, 905 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that an issue is not preserved when the grounds raised on appeal are different than those raised below); Evans v. Wabash Life Ins. Co., 247 S.C. 464, 466, 148 S.E.2d 153 (1966) (holding that the failure to make a directed verdict motion at the close of all evidence precludes a review of the motion’s denial on appeal). 

AFFIRMED.

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