Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-078 - Carolina Aggregate v. Buffington

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

Carolina Aggregate Products, LLC, Respondent,

v.

Buffington & Smith Contracting Company, LLP, John E. Buffington, Carlotta B. Hood, Safeco Insurance Company, and Palmetto Paving Corporation, Defendants,

of whom Buffington & Smith Contracting Company, LLP, John E. Buffington & Carlotta B. Hood, are, Appellants,


Appeal From Horry County
William E. Lawson, Special Referee


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-078
Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed February 24, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Carlotta B. Hood, pro se, of Gillsville, for Appellants.

Daniel J. MacDonald, of Myrtle Beach, and Philip Coleman Thompson, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: John E. Buffington and Carlotta B. Hood (collectively Appellants) appeal the special referee's judgment in favor of Carolina Aggregate Products.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to the issue of a limit on the amount of the guaranty, this issue was not raised until the motion to alter or amend and thus is not properly before this court.  See Peterson v. Porter, 389 S.C. 148, 152, 697 S.E.2d 656, 658 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding appellant failed to preserve issue for this court's review where appellants raised the employer-employee argument in his motion to reconsider but failed to raise it during the summary judgment proceedings); Kiawah Prop. Owners Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 359 S.C. 105, 113, 597 S.E.2d 145, 149 (2004) (stating a party may not raise an issue in a motion to reconsider, alter, or amend a judgment that could have been presented prior to the judgment).

2. As to the issue of the amount of the debt, Buffington & Smith is no longer a party to this appeal and Appellants, as guarantors, cannot assert Buffington & Smith's defenses to the debt.  Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank of S.C. v. Lanford, 313 S.C. 540, 544, 443 S.E.2d 549, 551 (1994) (holding a guarantor is not a party to a note and cannot avail himself of defenses based on the note).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


[1] Buffington & Smith Contracting Company, LLP, also appealed the special referee's order.  However, after the final briefs were filed, counsel for Buffington & Smith and Appellants withdrew.  On April 1, 2010, this court dismissed the appeal as to Buffington & Smith when it failed to obtain new counsel. 

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