Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-300 - Brown v. Brown

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

Franklin Brown, Appellant,

v.

Bernard Brown, Respondent.


Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-300 
Submitted March 3, 2012 – Filed May 16, 2012


AFFIRMED


William Mark Koontz, of North Charleston, for Appellant.

Bernard Brown, pro se, of Johns Island.

PER CURIAM: Franklin Brown (Franklin) appeals the circuit court's decision remanding this case to the magistrate's court and ordering the injunction put in place by the magistrate's court to remain until a final judgment on the merits is issued.  Franklin argues (1) ownership of real property is at issue, which deprived the magistrate's court of jurisdiction; (2) his due process rights were violated because he was not given the requisite thirty days to answer the complaint that was filed against him; (3) the injunction is void for not complying with Rule 65, SCRCP; and (4) the injunction can be construed as a permanent injunction, which the magistrate's court improperly granted.  We affirm.[1]

1.  We hold the magistrate's court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-20(2) (2007) ("No magistrate shall have cognizance of a civil action . . . [w]hen the title to real property shall come in question . . . .").  The magistrate's order did not include a finding of who holds title to any real property.  Accordingly, the magistrate's court did not violate section 22-3-20(2).

2.  As to Franklin's remaining arguments, we hold these issues are not preserved for our review.  The circuit court did not specifically rule on these issues, and Franklin did not file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion with the circuit court.  See Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 247-48, 631 S.E.2d 268, 274 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When a [circuit] court does not explicitly rule on an argument raised, and the appellant makes no Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to obtain a ruling, the appellate court may not address the issue." (emphasis added)); Cowburn v. Leventis, 366 S.C. 20, 41, 619 S.E.2d 437, 449 (Ct. App. 2005) ("When a [circuit] court makes a general ruling on an issue, but does not address the specific argument raised by a party, that party must make a Rule 59(e) motion asking the [circuit] court to rule on the issue in order to preserve it for appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.


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