Zimmerman v. Marsh

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Steven J. Zimmerman & Sarah M. Zimmerman,       
Respondents,

v.

Vicki Lane Marsh,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Benjamin H. Culbertson, Master-In-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-662

Submitted September 17, 2003 – Filed November 17, 2003

AFFIRMED

Robert H. Gwin, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Robert H. O’Donnell, of Georgetown, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Steven J. Zimmerman and Sarah
M. Zimmerman brought this action seeking partition by sale of property they
owned jointly with Vicki Lane Marsh.  Marsh requested the property be allotted
to her.  Finding partition by allotment not feasible under the circumstances,
the master-in-equity ordered partition by sale and set forth the credits to
be allowed to each of the parties.  Marsh appeals.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220, SCACR and the following authorities:

Issue I.:  S.C. Code Ann. § 15-61-10 (1976) (partition
is compellable by a cotenant as a matter of right); Pinckney v. Atkins,
317 S.C. 340, 345, 454 S.E.2d 339, 342 (Ct. App. 1995) (stating a partition
procedure must be fair and equitable to all parties of the action); Few v.
Few, 242 S.C. 433, 441, 131 S.E.2d 248, 252 (1963) (stating partition in
kind or by allotment may be resorted to only when it can be fairly and impartially
made and without injury to any of the parties in interest); Pruitt v. Pruitt,
298 S.C. 411, 414, 380 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 1989) (“[Di]sparate testimony
as to the value of the subject property requires partition by public sale, which
will afford each party an opportunity to back her own judgment of value by bidding
for the interest of the other.”). 

Issue II:  Holy Loch Distrib., Inc. v. Hitchcock,
340 S.C. 20, 24, 531 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2000) (stating in order to preserve issue
for appellate review issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial
judge);  Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289, 311, 486 S.E.2d 750, 761 (1997)
(holding issue not preserved for appellate review where appellants failed to
object to the cost issue either at the hearing or in their motion to alter or
amend the order). 

AFFIRMED

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.