Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-348 - Steele v. Steele

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Carrie Y. Steele, Appellant,

v.

William L. Steele, Jr., Respondent.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 Georgia V. Anderson, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-348
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 23, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Carrie Y. Steele, of Spartanburg, for Appellant.

Brian Wayne King, of Forest City, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Carrie Y. Steele (Wife) and William L. Steele, Jr., (Husband) were granted a decree of divorce on April 21, 2006.  Following a hearing, a final order dated February 15, 2007, addressed equitable distribution, alimony, attorney's fees, and a pending contempt action.  Wife now appeals from the final order, asking this court to reverse and vacate.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the family court erred in denying Wife's motion for a continuance:  Rule 40(i)(1), SCRCP ("If good and sufficient cause for continuance is shown, the continuance may be granted by the court."); Pyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 650, 647 S.E.2d 188, 195 (2007) ("The grant or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record.").

2.  As to Wife's remaining issues: 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.");  Doe v. Roe, 369 S.C. 351, 376, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An issue is not preserved where the trial court does not explicitly rule on an argument and the appellant does not make a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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