Epps v. Daniels

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Sherye Epps, Respondent,

v.

James A.
Daniels, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

 Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge

A.E. Morehead, III, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-517

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 13, 2009

AFFIRMED

G. Murrell Smith, Jr., of Sumter, for
Appellant.

D. Malloy McEachin, Jr., of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This
appeal arises after the family court required James Daniels (Father) pay retroactive
child support to the date Sherye Epps (Mother) originally filed her complaint. 
Father argues the family court erred in 1) finding it was bound by a prior
family court order and 2) granting or affirming an award of child support to
the Mother when such relief was neither pled nor litigated.  Father maintains
the family court's decision violated his due process rights.  We affirm.[1]

1.  The family court did not
err in requiring Father pay Mother retroactive alimony to the date of her
original filing. See Henggeler v. Hanson,
333 S.C. 598, 601-02, 510 S.E.2d 722, 724 (Ct. App. 1998) ("On
appeal from the family court, this court has jurisdiction to correct errors of
law and find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the
evidence."); Smith v. Doe, 366 S.C. 469,
474, 623 S.E.2d 370, 372 (2005) (holding child support awards are within the
sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent
an abuse of discretion); Sutton v. Sutton, 291 S.C. 401, 408, 353
S.E.2d 884, 888 (Ct. App. 1987) (allowing a family court to award retroactive
child support even when it is not pled); See, e.g., Holcombe v.
Hardee, 304 S.C. 522, 524, 405 S.E.2d 821, 822 (1991); Bowers v. Bowers,
349 S.C. 85, 98-99, 561 S.E.2d 610, 617 (Ct. App. 2002) (both indicating not
every violation of Rule 26(a) requires reversal); Rule 220(c), SCACR (allowing
this court to affirm on any ground appearing in the record on appeal); Cf. Rule 2(a), SCRFC (applying South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure to domestic
relations actions); Rule 43(l), SCRCP ("If any motion be made to any judge
and be denied, in whole or in part, or be granted conditionally, no subsequent
motion upon the same state of facts shall be made to any other judge in that
action."). 

2.  We decline to rule on whether
Father's due process rights were violated as this issue is not preserved for
our review. King v. King, 384 S.C. 134, 142, 681
S.E.2d 609, 614 (Ct. App. 2009) (requiring an issue be raised to and ruled upon
by the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER and
LOCKEMY, JJ., and GOOLSBY, A.J. concur.

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