From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McDaniel v. McDaniel

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Dec 18, 2013
2013-UP-469 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2013)

Opinion

2013-UP-469

12-18-2013

Misty S. McDaniel, Respondent, v. Larry A. McDaniel, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011-191346

Walter Christopher Castro, of Central, for Appellant. Misty S. McDaniel, pro se, of North Myrtle Beach.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted November 1, 2013

Appeal From Horry County Lisa A. Kinon, Family Court Judge

Walter Christopher Castro, of Central, for Appellant.

Misty S. McDaniel, pro se, of North Myrtle Beach.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 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 trial court."); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("Error preservation requirements are intended to enable the lower court to rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Washington v. Washington, 308 S.C. 549, 551, 419 S.E.2d 779, 781 (1992) (holding where an appellant neither raises an issue at trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

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

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McDaniel v. McDaniel

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Dec 18, 2013
2013-UP-469 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2013)
Case details for

McDaniel v. McDaniel

Case Details

Full title:Misty S. McDaniel, Respondent, v. Larry A. McDaniel, Appellant. Appellate…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Dec 18, 2013

Citations

2013-UP-469 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2013)