Shelton v. Shelton

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

Mary L. Agnes Shelton, Respondent,

v.

Jack Shelton and Sharon Shelton, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001019

Appeal From Richland County
L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-247
Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed June 8, 2022

AFFIRMED

Herbert E. Buhl, III, of Columbia, for Appellants.

William James LaLima, of LaLima Law Firm, LLC, of
West Columbia; and Joseph Andrew Catalano, of McKay
Law Firm, of Columbia, both for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jack and Sharon Shelton (collectively, the Sheltons) appeal the
circuit court's order granting summary judgment to Mary Shelton (Mary). On
appeal, the Sheltons argue the circuit court erred by (1) determining there were no
issues of material fact regarding their defense and counterclaim of adverse
possession and (2) violating the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security
Act (the CARES Act) and an order of our supreme court requiring a certification of
compliance with the CARES Act before proceeding on an eviction or foreclosure.
We affirm.

As to issue one, we find the circuit court did not err by finding the Sheltons failed
to establish a claim for adverse possession because they held themselves out as
tenants. See Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., Inc., 349 S.C. 356, 361,
563 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2002) ("An appellate court reviews a grant of summary
judgment under the same standard applied by the [circuit] court pursuant to Rule
56, SCRCP."); Osborne v. Adams, 346 S.C. 4, 7, 550 S.E.2d 319, 321 (2001) ("On
appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the appellate court will review
all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the evidence in a
light most favorable to the non-moving party below."); Rule 56(e), SCRCP
("When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this
rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his
pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."); Regions
Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 660, 582 S.E.2d 432, 438 (Ct. App. 2003)
("Once the party moving for summary judgment meets the initial burden of
showing an absence of evidentiary support for the opponent's case, the opponent
cannot simply rest on mere allegations or denials contained in the pleadings."); id.
("[T]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a
genuine issue for trial."); Taylor v. Heirs of William Taylor, 419 S.C. 639, 650, 799
S.E.2d 919, 924 (Ct. App. 2017) ("The party asserting adverse possession must
show continuous, hostile, open, actual, notorious, and exclusive possession for a
certain period of time." (quoting Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 10, 681 S.E.2d 6, 11
(Ct. App. 2009)); id. at 651, 799 S.E.2d at 925 ("For possession to be open and
notorious, 'the legal owner need not have actual knowledge the claimant is
claiming property adversely, [but] the hostile possession should be so notorious
that the legal owner by ordinary diligence should have known of it.'" (quoting
Jones, 384 S.C. at 13-14, 681 S.E.2d at 13)).

As to issue two, we find this issue was not preserved for appellate review because
it was not raised to and ruled on by the circuit court. See 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 judge to be preserved for appellate review.").
AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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