Opinion
2018-UP-389
10-24-2018
Gloria Terry, Appellant, v. Robert L. Terry, Sr., Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-000147
Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Appellant. Benjamin Cullifer Pickens Sapp, of Walterboro, for Respondent.
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.
Submitted September 1, 2018
Appeal From Colleton County Gerald C. Smoak, Jr., Family Court Judge.
Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Benjamin Cullifer Pickens Sapp, of Walterboro, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Gloria Terry (Wife) appeals the family court's order dismissing her claim for equitable distribution on the ground of laches. Wife argues the court erred in granting Robert L. Terry, Sr.'s (Husband's) motion to dismiss because (1) Husband presented no evidence in support of the doctrine of laches, (2) the court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing, and (3) Husband failed to establish evidence of "unreasonable delay" or "prejudice."
As to issues one and three, we decline to address the merits of these issues because Wife failed to provide this court with a sufficient record. See Taylor v. Taylor, 294 S.C. 296, 299, 363 S.E.2d 909, 911 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The burden is on the appellant to furnish a sufficient record on appeal from which this court can make an intelligent review."). At the close of the hearing on Husband's motion to dismiss, the family court informed the parties they could file briefs with the court and provided a timeline during which the parties could submit their respective briefs. The family court subsequently noted in its order dismissing the case that it "allowed counsel for the parties to present their arguments and briefs to be taken into consideration"; however, the record on appeal did not include the briefs. As a result, this court is not able to make a meaningful review. Therefore, we decline to address the merits of issues one and three and affirm as to those issues.
As to issue two, we find this issue not preserved for appellate review because an issue cannot be raised for the first time in a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion. See Gartside v. Gartside, 383 S.C. 35, 43, 677 S.E.2d 621, 625 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[A] party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to present to the family court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did not."); 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 [family] court.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.