McDaniel v. McDaniel

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

Misty S. McDaniel, Respondent,

v.

Larry A. McDaniel, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-191346

Appeal From Horry County
Lisa A. Kinon, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-469
Submitted November 1, 2013 – Filed December 18, 2013

AFFIRMED

Walter Christopher Castro, of Central, for Appellant.

Misty S. McDaniel, pro se, of North Myrtle Beach.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 54 (Ct. App. 2006)
("To preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court.");
Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000)
("Error preservation requirements are intended to enable the lower court to rule
properly after it has considered all relevant facts, law, and arguments." (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)); Washington v. Washington, 308 S.C. 549,
551, 419 S.E.2d 779, 781 (1992) (holding where 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.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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