Brown v. Brown

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

Franklin Brown, Appellant,

v.

Bernard Brown, Respondent.

Appeal From Charleston County

Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-300 

Submitted March 3, 2012 – Filed May 16,
2012

AFFIRMED

William Mark Koontz, of North Charleston,
for Appellant.

Bernard Brown, pro se, of Johns Island.

PER CURIAM: Franklin Brown (Franklin) appeals the circuit court's decision
remanding this case to the magistrate's court and ordering the injunction put
in place by the magistrate's court to remain until a final judgment on the
merits is issued.  Franklin argues (1) ownership of real property is at issue, which deprived the
magistrate's court of jurisdiction; (2) his due process rights were violated
because he was not given the requisite thirty days to answer the complaint that
was filed against him; (3) the injunction is void for not complying with Rule
65, SCRCP; and (4) the injunction can be construed as a permanent injunction,
which the magistrate's court improperly granted.  We affirm.[1]

1.  We hold the
magistrate's court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-20(2) (2007) ("No
magistrate shall have cognizance of a civil action . . . [w]hen the title to
real property shall come in question . . . .").  The magistrate's order did not include a
finding of who holds title to any real property.  Accordingly, the magistrate's court did
not violate section 22-3-20(2).

2.  As to
Franklin's remaining arguments, we hold these issues are not preserved for our
review.  The circuit court did not specifically rule on these issues, and
Franklin did not file a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion with the circuit court.  See Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 247-48, 631 S.E.2d 268, 274 (Ct. App.
2006) ("When a [circuit] court does not explicitly rule on an
argument raised, and the appellant makes no Rule
59(e), SCRCP, motion to obtain a ruling, the
appellate court may not address the issue."
(emphasis added)); Cowburn v. Leventis, 366 S.C. 20, 41, 619 S.E.2d 437,
449 (Ct. App. 2005) ("When a [circuit] court makes a general ruling on an
issue, but does not address the specific argument raised by a party, that party
must make a Rule 59(e) motion asking the
[circuit] court to rule on the issue in order to preserve it for appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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