Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-340 - Blackwell v. Birket #2

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

Maureen Blackwell and Walter L. Blackwell, III,  #2 Appellants,

v.

Janis Birket, Jeromy Birket and Does 1 through 20,  Defendants,

Of Whom Janis Birket and Jeromy Birket are the Respondents.


Appeal From Richland County
 Leslie K. Riddle, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-340 
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 29, 2010


AFFIRMED


Maureen Blackwell and Walter L. Blackwell, III, both pro se, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Following the circuit court's dismissal of Walter L. Blackwell, III and Maureen Blackwell's (collectively the Blackwells) complaint, the Blackwells filed an almost identical complaint in family court.  The Blackwells appeal from the family court's order finding it lacked jurisdiction over their complaint and awarding Janis and Jeromy Birket $2,500 in attorney's fees.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to the Blackwells' jurisdictional arguments: See Blackwell v. Birket, 2010-UP-330 (Ct. App. Filed June 29, 2010) (finding the circuit court had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the Blackwells). 

2.  As to whether the family court erred in finding the Blackwells were required to wait to file their complaint in family court until after this court issued an opinion in Blackwell: In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 239 (2001) ("A bald assertion, without supporting argument, does not preserve an issue for appeal.").     

3.  As to whether the family court erred in instructing the Blackwells to pay $2,500 in attorney's fees:  ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) (stating an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case).[2]

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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

[2] The Blackwells only appealed the award of attorney's fees pursuant to South Carolina's Frivolous Proceedings Act (the Act); however, Janis and Jeromy Birket requested attorney's fees pursuant to both the Act and Rule 11, SCRCP.