Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-120 - Martin v. Walker

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

Thomas F. Martin and John D. Martin, Respondents,

v.

David H. Walker, Appellant.


Appeal From Anderson County
 Ellis B. Drew, Jr., Master-in-Equity


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-120
Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 23, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Michael F. Mullinax, of Anderson, for Appellant.

John Derrick Martin, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: David H. Walker appeals the denial of his motion to set aside the judicial sale of a piece of property in Anderson County, alleging that the master-in-equity erred in refusing to allow Walker or anyone on his behalf to bid at the partition sale of the property.   We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1, 23, 698 S.E.2d 612, 624 (2010) ("[A] contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review."); Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 243, 676 S.E.2d 320, 324 (2009) (stating a party may not complain on appeal of an error that his own conduct induced).[2] 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


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

[2] Counsel for Walker made no objection to the ruling by the master-in-equity prior to the judicial sale, and in fact, agreed by stating, "I think that's reasonable for the court to do." However, at a hearing following the judicial sale, counsel for Walker then objected to the fact that the court prevented Walker from bidding at the sale of the property. Walker filed a motion for reconsideration following the post judicial sale hearing but not following the original ruling prior to the judicial sale. Therefore, the issue presented on appeal is not preserved for this court's review.