Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-530 - Patel v. Patel

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

Bhaveshkumar R. Patel, Respondent,

v.

Nayana D. Patel, Appellant.


Appeal From Dorchester County
 Nancy Chapman McLin, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-530
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 13, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Glenn Walters and R. Bentz Kirby, both of Orangeburg, for Appellant.

Jan L. Warner and Matthew E. Steinmetz, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this domestic action, Nayana D. Patel appeals the family court's final order and decree of divorce, arguing (1) the order was not a final order because it did not resolve all the issues in the case, particularly issues of Hindu law relating to the rights of the parties and the division of marital property, and (2) the family court should have stayed the action until such time as the Hindu courts finalized issues related to Hindu law.  As to both issues, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006) ("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Id. at 212, 634 S.E.2d at 54-55 ("Therefore, when an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, PIEPER, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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