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 B. Dennison, Appellant,
Herbert Dennison, Respondent.
Appeal From Georgetown County
Lisa A. Kinon, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-541
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 19, 2009
Carrie B. Dennison, of Georgetown, as Appellant, acting pro se.
Holly H. Wall, of Johnsonville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Carrie Dennison (Wife) appeals the family court's final order, which granted a divorce on the ground of one year's continuous separation and equitably divided marital property. Wife argues: 1) the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case; 2) the family court erred in applying the coverture fraction method and failing to consider the factors enumerated in section 20-3-620 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008) in its equitable division of the marital property; and 3) the family court erred in finding Wife did not request alimony. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to Wife's argument that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-30 (Supp. 2008) ("In order to institute an action for divorce from the bonds of matrimony the plaintiff must have resided in this State at least one year prior to the commencement of the action or, if the plaintiff is a nonresident, the defendant must have resided in this State for this period.").
2. As to Wife's arguments that the family court erred in equitably dividing the marital property and in finding Wife did not request alimony: Chastain v. Chastain, 381 S.C. 295, 306, 672 S.E.2d 108, 114 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding an issue is not preserved for appellate review if the issue is not raised to the family court during trial or through post-trial motions); Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 339, 611 S.E.2d 485, 487-88 (2005) (holding the appealing party has the burden of providing a sufficient record).
WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.