Steele v. Steele

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

Carrie Y. Steele, Appellant,

v.

William L. Steele, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001901

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Usha J. Bridges, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-099
Submitted January 1, 2016 – Filed March 2, 2016

AFFIRMED

Carrie Y. Steele, of Spartanburg, pro se.

Hattie Darlene Evans Boyce, of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Carrie Steele (Wife) appeals the family court's order dismissing
her motion for relief from judgment or a new trial and setting off the amount owed
to her from William Steele's (Husband's) retirement account, arguing the family
court erred in (1) failing to grant her relief from judgment or a new trial when she
made a mistake regarding the date of the hearing, (2) finding Wife caused Husband
damages because she did not move out of the marital home pending her appeal, (3)
failing to consider all court orders, testimony, pleadings and other documents, (4)
misinterpreting and misapplying South Carolina law, (5) incorrectly applying the
South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, (6) making erroneous factual findings
unsupported by the record, and (7) failing to address Wife's ineffective assistance
of counsel claim against Husband's attorney. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Issue 1: Rule 60(b)(1), SCRCP ("On motion and upon such terms as are
just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect."); Rouvet v. Rouvet, 388 S.C. 301, 308, 696 S.E.2d 204, 207 (Ct. App.
2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) is
within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); Rule 59(a)(2), SCRCP ("A new
trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues . . . in
an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have
heretofore been granted in the courts of the State."); Blejski v. Blejski, 325 S.C.
491, 497, 480 S.E.2d 462, 466 (Ct. App. 1997) (noting appellate courts review a
family court's decision on a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a)(2) under an
abuse of discretion standard); RRR, Inc. v. Toggas, 378 S.C. 174, 181-82, 662
S.E.2d 438, 441-42 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by denying a motion under Rule 60(b)(1), SCRCP, and entering
judgment against a party who properly received notice of the hearing date but
failed to attend).

2. As to Issues 2 and 3: Sanders v. Sanders, 396 S.C. 410, 419, 722 S.E.2d 15, 19
(Ct. App. 2011) ("In general, marital property that is subject to equitable
distribution is valued as of the date the marital litigation is filed or commenced.");
Roof v. Steele, 413 S.C. 543, 549, 776 S.E.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The
family court is a court of equity and on appeals therefrom the appellate court
reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); id. ("However, this broad standard of
review does not require the appellate court to disregard the factual findings of the
family court, and the appellant is not relieved of the burden of demonstrating error
in the family court's findings of fact."); id. ("Accordingly, we will affirm the
decision of the family court in an equity case unless its decision is controlled by
some error of law or the appellant satisfies the burden of showing the
preponderance of the evidence actually supports contrary factual findings by this
court." (quoting Holmes v. Holmes, 399 S.C. 499, 504, 732 S.E.2d 213, 216 (Ct.
App. 2012))); Ex parte Dibble, 279 S.C. 592, 595, 310 S.E.2d 440, 442 (Ct. App.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
1983) ("Courts have the inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary to
insure that just results are reached to the fullest extent possible."); Smalls v. S.C.
Dep't of Educ., 339 S.C. 208, 219, 528 S.E.2d 682, 688 (Ct. App. 2000) ("The trial
court's jurisdiction to set off one judgment against another is equitable in nature
and should be exercised when necessary to provide justice between the parties.");
id. ("A set-off is not necessarily founded upon 'any statute or fixed rule of court,
but grows out of the inherent equitable jurisdiction' of the court; therefore, such
motions are 'addressed to the discretion of the court . . . .'" (quoting Rookard v.
Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry., 89 S.C. 371, 376, 71 S.E. 992, 995 (1911))).

3. As to Issues 4 through 7: 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."); id. ("Error preservation requirements are intended to 'enable the lower
court to rule properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and
arguments.'" (quoting Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529
S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000))); id. ("Without an initial ruling by the trial court, a
reviewing court simply is not able to evaluate whether the trial court committed
error."); id. at 212, 634 S.E.2d at 54-55 ("Therefore, when 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.

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