Herridge v. Herridge

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. 
IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Case No. 1993-DR-10-6807, 1994-DR-10-6676

Marion Niemi Herridge, Inge Ginsberg and David Baron,       
Plaintiffs,

v.

Van Keith Herridge,       
Defendant.

Case No. 1998-DR-10-4836

Inge Ginsberg,       
Appellant,

v.

Van Keith Herridge,       
Respondent.

Case No. 1999-DR-10-0339

Van Keith Herridge,       
Respondent,

v.

Inge Ginsberg and Marion Niemi,       
Defendants,

of whom Inge Ginsberg is,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Jack Alan Landis, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-134

Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed
February 26, 2004

AFFIRMED

Ms. Inge Ginsberg, of New York, for Appellant.

Alexander B. Cash, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant
to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: 
Glasscock, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81,
557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding short, conclusory statements made
without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore not
preserved for appellate review); see also First Sav. Bank v. McLean,
314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (holding appellant was deemed
to have abandoned issues on appeal, where he failed to provide any argument
or supporting authority); R & G Constr., Inc. v. Lowcountry Reg’l Transp.
Auth., 343 S.C. 424, 437, 540 S.E.2d 113, 120 (Ct. App. 2000) (holding where
no authority is cited and argument is brief and conclusory, issue is deemed
abandoned).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ.,
concurring.