Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-517 - Epps v. Daniels

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


Sherye Epps, Respondent,

v.

James A. Daniels, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
 Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge
A.E. Morehead, III, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-517
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 13, 2009


AFFIRMED


G. Murrell Smith, Jr., of Sumter, for Appellant.

D. Malloy McEachin, Jr., of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises after the family court required James Daniels (Father) pay retroactive child support to the date Sherye Epps (Mother) originally filed her complaint.  Father argues the family court erred in 1) finding it was bound by a prior family court order and 2) granting or affirming an award of child support to the Mother when such relief was neither pled nor litigated.  Father maintains the family court's decision violated his due process rights.  We affirm.[1]

1.  The family court did not err in requiring Father pay Mother retroactive alimony to the date of her original filing. See Henggeler v. Hanson, 333 S.C. 598, 601-02, 510 S.E.2d 722, 724 (Ct. App. 1998) ("On appeal from the family court, this court has jurisdiction to correct errors of law and find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence."); Smith v. Doe, 366 S.C. 469, 474, 623 S.E.2d 370, 372 (2005) (holding child support awards are within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); Sutton v. Sutton, 291 S.C. 401, 408, 353 S.E.2d 884, 888 (Ct. App. 1987) (allowing a family court to award retroactive child support even when it is not pled); See, e.g., Holcombe v. Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524, 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991); Bowers v. Bowers, 349 S.C. 85, 98-99, 561 S.E.2d 610, 617 (Ct. App. 2002) (both indicating not every violation of Rule 26(a) requires reversal); Rule 220(c), SCACR (allowing this court to affirm on any ground appearing in the record on appeal); Cf. Rule 2(a), SCRFC (applying South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure to domestic relations actions); Rule 43(l), SCRCP ("If any motion be made to any judge and be denied, in whole or in part, or be granted conditionally, no subsequent motion upon the same state of facts shall be made to any other judge in that action."). 

2.  We decline to rule on whether Father's due process rights were violated as this issue is not preserved for our review. King v. King, 384 S.C. 134, 142, 681 S.E.2d 609, 614 (Ct. App. 2009) (requiring an issue be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J. concur.


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