Bailey v. Development Systems

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

James H. Bailey, Jr., Respondent,

v.

Development Systems International, LLC, David W.
Auterson, John R. Curtis, Dianne N. LaRose, James P.
LaRose, Robert C. MacConnell, and Sandra M. Morckel,
Defendants,

Of Whom David W. Auterson, John R. Curtis, Dianne N.
LaRose, James P. LaRose, Robert C. MacConnell, and
Sandra M. Morckel are the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001062

Appeal From Horry County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-008
Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed January 7, 2015

AFFIRMED

George E. Graham, of McIver & Graham, PA, of
Conway, for Appellants.
R. Wayne Byrd and Audra McCall Byrd, both of Turner
Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Myrtle Beach, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the circuit court's award of damages to
Respondent James H. Bailey following the entry of a default judgment against
Appellants. Appellants argue the circuit court erred in (1) not requiring Bailey to
present evidence of a fixed method by which he calculated his losses; (2) not
determining the liability of Development Systems International, LLC, and its
responsibility for damages or apportioning damages among the Appellants; (3) not
using the operating agreement as a basis for awarding damages; and (4) relying
solely on Bailey's testimony to determine the amount of damages. 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 [circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review."); Doe v. S.B.M.,
327 S.C. 352, 356-57, 488 S.E.2d 878, 881 (Ct. App. 1997) (finding an appellant's
arguments challenging an award of damages were not preserved when the
appellant failed to object to any issues regarding damages at the damages hearing);
Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 466, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) (stating
an "issue must be sufficiently clear to bring into focus the precise nature of the
alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the [circuit court]"); Doe,
327 S.C. at 356, 488 S.E.2d at 881 ("Matters not argued to or ruled on by the
[circuit] court are not preserved for review."); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361
S.C. 9, 24, 602 S.E.2d 772, 780 (2004) ("A party must file [a Rule 59(e), SCRCP,]
motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to
preserve it for appellate review."); Hancock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 S.C. 168,
171, 584 S.E.2d 398, 399 (Ct. App. 2003) (concluding an issue not addressed in
the circuit court's final order on summary judgment was not preserved for appellate
review when the appellant did not file a motion under Rule 59(e) seeking a ruling
on the issue).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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