Robinson v. Jones

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

Yvonne J. Robinson, Respondent,

v.

Donray Curtis Jones, Cynthia Denise Jones, Emma Kelly
Washington, and Troy Eliazer Washington, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000017

Appeal From Cherokee County
Gordon G. Cooper, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-146
Submitted March 1, 2023 – Filed April 5, 2023

AFFIRMED

Donray Curtis Jones, Cynthia Denise Jones, Emma Kelly
Washington, and Troy Eliazer Washington, all of
Pacolet, pro se.

Scott Franklin Talley, of Talley Law Firm, P.A., of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Donray Jones, Cynthia Jones, Troy Washington, and Emma
Washington (collectively, Appellants) appeal a master-in-equity's order granting
Yvonne Robinson's petition for a partition in kind of a parcel of real property
owned by all parties as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. On appeal,
Appellants argue the master erred by (1) construing their statutory right of first
refusal as optional, (2) failing to order an appraisal of the property, (3) ordering a
partition in kind, and (4) awarding attorney's fees and costs to Robinson. We
affirm.

1. Whether the master erred by characterizing Appellants' alleged right of first
refusal as optional is not preserved for appellate review because although
Appellants notified the master of their interest in purchasing Robinson's property
interest, they failed to argue to the master that they were entitled to a right of first
refusal. See Berry v. Spang, 433 S.C. 1, 10, 855 S.E.2d 309, 314 (Ct. App. 2021)
("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review only when they are
raised to and ruled on by the [circuit] court." (alteration in original) (quoting Elam
v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004))).

2. Whether the master erred by failing to order an appraisal of the property at issue
is not preserved for appellate review because Appellants did not request that the
master order an appraisal and the master did not rule on whether an appraisal was
proper. See id. ("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review only
when they are raised to and ruled on by the [circuit] court." (alteration in original)
(quoting Elam, 361 S.C. at 23, 602 S.E.2d at 779-80)).

3. Whether the master erred by granting Robinson's petition for a partition in kind
is not preserved for appellate review because Appellants did not argue to the
master that a partition in kind was improper under South Carolina law or that a
partition in kind was proper only when the property at issue was determined to be
"heirs' property." See id. ("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review
only when they are raised to and ruled on by the [circuit] court." (alteration in
original) (quoting Elam, 361 S.C. at 23, 602 S.E.2d at 779-80)).

4. The master did not abuse his discretion by awarding attorney's fees and costs to
Robinson. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-61-110 (2005) ("The court of common pleas
may fix attorneys' fees in all partition proceedings and, as may be equitable, assess
such fees against any or all of the parties in interest."); S & W Corp. of Inman v.
Wells, 283 S.C. 218, 220, 321 S.E.2d 183, 185 (Ct. App. 1984) ("[Section
15-61-110] clearly states that the fixing and assessing of attorney's fees is a matter
within the circuit court's discretion, the exercise of which will not be disturbed
absent a showing of abuse thereof.").
AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J, and GEATHERS and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

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