Patel v. Patel

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

Bhaveshkumar R.
Patel, Respondent,

v.

Nayana D.
Patel, Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

 Nancy Chapman McLin, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-530

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 13, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Glenn Walters and R. Bentz Kirby, both of Orangeburg, for
Appellant.

Jan L. Warner and Matthew E. Steinmetz, both of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this domestic action, Nayana D. Patel appeals the family court's final order and decree of divorce,
arguing (1) the order was not a final order because it did not resolve all the
issues in the case, particularly issues of Hindu law relating to the rights of
the parties and the division of marital property, and (2) the family court
should have stayed the action until such time as the Hindu courts finalized
issues related to Hindu law.  As to both issues, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: 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."); Id. at 212, 634 S.E.2d at 54-55 ("Therefore, when
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.

THOMAS, PIEPER, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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