Kelly v. Rachels

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

Kathleen M.
Kelly, Respondent,

v.

James P. Rachels, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

 Kellum W. Allen, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-287

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010

AFFIRMED

James P. Rachels, pro se, of Ridgecrest, California, for Appellant

James W. Corley, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:   James P. Rachels (Husband) appeals the family
court's declaratory judgment requiring him to personally pay Kathleen M. Kelly
(Wife) $423.50 per month plus cost of living adjustments from his military
retired pay.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether
the family court erred in finding Wife had standing to bring a declaratory
judgment action: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998)
("[A]n 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.").

2. As to whether
the family court erred in reforming the parties' agreement to require Husband
to personally remit payment to Wife: Heins
v. Heins, 344 S.C. 146, 158, 543
S.E.2d 224, 230 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Where an agreement is clear and
capable of legal interpretation, the court's only function is to interpret its
lawful meaning, discover the intention of the parties as found within the
agreement, and give effect to it.").

3. As to whether the family
court erred in awarding Wife $423.50 per month plus cost of living adjustments: Steffenson v. Olsen, 360 S.C. 318, 322, 600 S.E.2d 129, 131 (Ct.
App. 2004) ("If an agreement is clear and unambiguous, its terms should be
applied according to their plain and ordinary meaning and consideration of
extrinsic evidence to alter that meaning is improper.").   

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and
PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

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