Unifund CCR, LLC v. Shonda L. Wade

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

Unifund CCR, LLC, Respondent,

v.

Shonda L. Wade, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000142

Appeal From Abbeville County
Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-231
Submitted May 1, 2023 – Filed June 7, 2023

AFFIRMED

Shonda L. Wade, of Due West, pro se.

Wesley D. Dail, of Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., of Durham,
North Carolina, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shonda L. Wade appeals an order from the circuit court granting
summary judgment to Unifund CCR, LLC (Unifund). On appeal, Wade argues the
circuit court erred by (1) not affording her a "fair" hearing or trial, thus triggering
the Due Process clauses under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and (2)
granting summary judgment because there existed questions of fact. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 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."); I'On, L.L.C. v. Town
of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) ("The losing party
must first try to convince the [circuit] court it [] has ruled wrongly and then, if that
effort fails, convince the appellate court that the [circuit] court erred."); 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."); Food Mart v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Env't
Control, 322 S.C. 232, 233, 471 S.E.2d 688, 688 (1996) (standing for the
proposition that appellate review of an issue is barred when the issue was not
raised or ruled on by the circuit court).

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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