Chisholm v. Chisholm

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

William Barry Chisholm, Appellant,

v.

Susan Elaine Chisholm, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001708

Appeal From Greenville County
Charles B. Simmons, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-163
Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed April 18, 2018

AFFIRMED

William Barry Chisholm, of Greenville, pro se.

Susan Elaine Chisholm, of Mauldin, pro se.

PER CURIAM: William Chisholm appeals the master's order instructing Susan
Chisholm to pay him $3,248.00, plus $653.25 in interest, arguing the master erred
by (1) not allowing William to present his case and (2) believing Susan would not
lie under oath. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to Issue 1: Pye v. Estate of Fox, 369 S.C. 555, 565, 633 S.E.2d 505, 510
(2006) ("Generally, an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court
to be preserved."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733
(1998) ("Moreover, an objection must be sufficiently specific to inform the trial
court of the point being urged by the objector."); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C.
455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule
59(e)[, SCRCP,] to present to the court an issue the party could have raised prior to
judgment but did not.").

2. As to Issue 2: Pye, 369 S.C. at 564, 633 S.E.2d at 510 ("It is well settled that an
issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and
ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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