Wood v. Goddard

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

Faith Davenport Wood, a/k/a Faith Davenport, Appellant,

v.

Gloria Goddard,
as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dewey L. Robertson, Sr., Respondent,

v.

The United States of America acting through its agent, The Internal Revenue Service,
Third-Party Defendant.

Appeal From Saluda County

Kathy Rushton, Special Referee

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-208

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 18,
2009

AFFIRMED

Orin Gail Briggs, of Lexington, for Appellant.

Demetri K. Koutrakos, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Faith
Davenport Wood appeals the circuit court’s determination that she was not
entitled to amend her complaint following the district court’s remand of Dewey
L. Robertson’s counterclaim for ejectment and the special referee’s order directing
the Saluda County Sheriff to eject any occupants from the subject property as
well as awarding damages to Robertson.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. 
As to whether: (1) the circuit court erred in failing to properly interpret and
apply Rule 54, FRCP; (2) the circuit court erred in failing to address issues
not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata; and (3) this court should apply
the holding in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006): Staubes v. City
of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) (holding in
order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review it must be raised and
ruled upon by the circuit court).

2. 
As to whether the circuit court erred in denying Wood’s motion to amend her
complaint:  USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg, 377 S.C. 643, 660,
661 S.E.2d 791, 800 (2008) (explaining an issue must
be raised and ruled upon in the circuit court in order to be preserved for
appellate review); Crawford v. Henderson, 356 S.C. 389, 409, 589 S.E.2d
204, 215 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating a party can not argue one ground at trial and
then an alternative ground on appeal). 

3. 
As to whether the special referee erred in determining Robertson was entitled
to eject occupants from the subject property: S.C. Code  Ann. § 15-67-610
(2005) (explaining a person who possesses land without the consent of the owner
is liable for trespass and the owner may request a court to eject the
trespasser); S.C. Code Ann. § 27-40-210(6) & (15) (2007) (defining landlord
as “the owner, lessor, or sublessor of the premises” and a tenant as “a person
entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of
others[.]”).

4.  As to whether the special referee erred in determining Wood was
liable for the fair market value for rent on the subject property throughout
the litigation: In re Care and
Treatment of McCracken, 346 S.C. 87,
92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (“A bald assertion, without supporting argument,
does not preserve an issue for appeal.”).

 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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