Hess v. Norton

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

David L. Hess
and Ceferina G. Hess, Appellants,

v.

Janice C.
Norton, James C. Daniel, and Russell M. Lawrence, Defendants,

Of whom Russell
M. Lawrence is Respondent.

Appeal From Greenwood County

 J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-538

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 19, 2009   

AFFIRMED

David L. Hess and Ceferina G. Hess, pro se, of Greenwood, for
Appellants.

Thomas E. Hite, Jr., of Abbeville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David L. Hess and Ceferina G. Hess (the Hesses) 
appeal the trial court's dismissal of their suit against Russell M. Lawrence. 
The Hesses argue: (1) there is clear and convincing evidence proving they were
conveyed a right of way to the alleyway; (2) their suit is not barred by the
applicable statute of limitations; (3) their suit is not frivolous and is based
on a valid claim to use of the alleyway; (4) the survey plan of the property
should be considered as the legal basis of their claim; (5) the Defendants
should be compelled to oust the present possessor of the alleyway; (6) the
contention that they have failed to prosecute the case is without merit.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authority:  S.C.
Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007)
(holding an 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).      

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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