Walther v. Maple

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

Steffani Walther and Michael Walther, Appellants,

v.

Eddie Maple and Kate Maple, individually and d/b/a
Equine Management, LLC, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002569

Appeal From Beaufort County
Maité D. Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-095
Submitted January 1, 2016 – Filed March 2, 2016

AFFIRMED

Robert V. Mathison, Jr., of Mathison & Mathison, of
Hilton Head Island, for Appellants.

David Starr Cobb, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney,
PA, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998)
("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must
have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be preserved for appellate
review."); id. at 77, 497 S.E.2d at 734 ("Post-trial motions . . . are used to preserve
those [issues] that have been raised to the trial court but not yet ruled upon by it."
(emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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