Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-561 - Fordham v. King

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

Sonya Fordham and William Fordham, Appellants,

v.

Luzena King, an incapacitated person, her next of kin, George Fordham, and Elisabeth Spencer of City of Charleston Elder Supportline, Respondents.


Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Harrington, Probate Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-561 
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed December 23, 2010


AFFIRMED


Anthony B. O'Neill, Sr., of Charleston, for Appellants.

Charles Mac Gibson, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Sonya and William Fordham appeal the probate court's award of attorney's fees and costs to the attorney for the City of Charleston Police Department's Elder Supportline.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that grants certain relief not previously contemplated or presented to the trial court, the aggrieved party must move, pursuant to [Rule 59(e), SCRCP], to alter or amend the judgment in order to preserve the issue for appeal.").    

AFFIRMED.

Short, Thomas, and Lockemy JJ., concur.


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