Pamela Raines v. James Raines

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

 

 

Pamela J.
Raines,

Appellant,

 

v.

James Dean Raines,

Respondent.

 

 

__________

 

Appeal From Greenwood County

Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge

__________

 

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-145

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed
February 23, 2010   

__________

 

AFFIRMED

__________

 

Christopher Lance Sheek, of Greenwood, for
Appellant.

 

C. Rauch Wise and Ted Ben Wyndham, both of
Greenwood, for Respondent.

 

 

PER CURIAM:  Pamela
J. Raines (Wife) appeals the family court's award of $400 per month in
permanent periodic alimony, arguing: (1) the family court erred because the final divorce order did not indicate whether or to
what degree the alimony factors were considered pursuant to section 20-3-130(C)
of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2009); and (2) the family court abused its
discretion because the alimony award does not put Wife in a similar position as
Wife enjoyed during the marriage, nor does it evenly distribute the resources between
the parties.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authority:  Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006)
("[W]hen 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, WILLIAMS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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