Fordham v. King

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

Sonya Fordham
and William Fordham, Appellants,

v.

Luzena King, an
incapacitated person, her next of kin, George Fordham, and Elisabeth Spencer
of City of Charleston Elder Supportline, Respondents.

Appeal From Charleston County

Kristi Harrington, Probate Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-561 

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed December
23, 2010

AFFIRMED

Anthony B. O'Neill, Sr., of Charleston,
for Appellants.

Charles Mac Gibson, of Charleston, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Sonya
and William Fordham appeal the probate court's award of attorney's fees and
costs to the attorney for the City of Charleston Police Department's Elder
Supportline.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authority: In re
Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502
S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("When a party receives an order that
grants certain relief not previously contemplated or presented to the trial
court, the aggrieved party must move, pursuant to [Rule 59(e), SCRCP], to alter
or amend the judgment in order to preserve the issue for appeal.").    

AFFIRMED.

Short, Thomas,
and Lockemy JJ., concur.

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