Mallek v. Tangeman

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

Barry D. Mallek and Alice R. Mallek, Respondents,

v.

Delbert R. Tangeman, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-040

Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed January
14, 2005

AFFIRMED

Chris B. Roberts, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

Donald C. Coggins, Jr., and Max Thomas Hyde, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Delbert R. Tangeman appeals from a jury verdict in favor
of Barry and Alice Mallek on their breach of contract claim.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR,
and the following authorities:  Hendrix v. Eastern Distribution, Inc.,
320 S.C. 218, 464 S.E.2d 112 (1995), aff’g in result and vacating in part
316 S.C. 34, 446 S.E.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1994) (affirming court of appeals’ decision
that directed verdict motion was not preserved for review because motion was
not reviewed at the close of all the evidence, and vacating portion of court
of appeals’ opinion that addressed merits of directed verdict); Freeman v.
A & M Home Sales, Inc., 293 S.C. 255, 359 S.E.2d 532 (Ct. App. 1987)
(ruling appellant’s failure to renew motion for directed verdict after all the
evidence was in precluded this court’s review of its exceptions questioning
the sufficiency of the evidence); see also Mize v. Blue Ridge Ry.
Co., 219 S.C. 119, 129-30, 64 S.E.2d 253, 258 (1951) (stating an issue was
not preserved even though the trial court explicitly approached the issue, because
the appellant did not mention the issue in its directed verdict motion; the
trial court’s discussion did “not have the effect of enlarging the grounds upon
which said motion was made.”); Bayle v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 344 S.C.
115, 128-29, 542 S.E.2d 736, 742-43 (Ct. App. 2001) (quoting 4 C.J.S. Appeal
& Error § 219 (1993)) (“As a general rule, the objection in the trial court
must have been made by the party who urges the error in the appellate court.”).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

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