Estate of Weinberg v. Laubshire

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

The Estate of
Phoebe Weinberg, Respondent,

v.

Robert Laubshire, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-448

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
11, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Robert Laubshire, pro se, for Appellant.

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert
Laubshire appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion to vacate the
registration of a foreign judgment against him, arguing the circuit court erred
in not determining whether the ten-year enforcement period for the execution of
a foreign judgment had expired.  We affirm[1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Chastain v.
Hiltabidle, 381 S.C. 508, 515, 673 S.E.2d 826, 829 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When an issue is raised to but not ruled upon by the [circuit] court, the
issue is preserved for appeal only if the party raises the same issue in a Rule 59(e) motion."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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