Burnside v. Mathis

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Anthony Burnside,       
Appellant,

v.

J. Davida Mathis,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-727

Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed December
16, 2003

AFFIRMED

Anthony Burnside of Columbia, for Appellant.

Davida  Mathis of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Anthony Burnside,
brought a complaint against attorney J. Davida Mathis asserting a violation
of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Burnside’s action stems from his payment
of monies to Mathis for her representation of him in a criminal matter which
resulted in Burnside’s conviction.  The trial judge granted Mathis’ motion for
summary judgment.  Mathis appeals.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR
and the following authorities:  ISSUE I:  Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas.
Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 673-74, 541 S.E.2d 269, 273 (Ct. App. 2000), aff’d
as modified, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 (2003) (a party who fails to move
for recusal has not preserved the issue for appellate review); Sabb v. S.C.
State Univ., 350 S.C. 416, 422, 567 S.E.2d 231, 234 (2002); Brown v.
Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 193, 470 S.E.2d 848, 850 (1996); Dove v. Gold Kist,
Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237-38, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994) (subject matter jurisdiction
is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings
in question belong);  ISSUE II:  In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551
S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (a constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon
to be preserved for appellate review); Great Games, Inc., v. South Carolina
Dep’t of Revenue, 339 S.C. 79, 85, 529 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2000) (where appellants
raised constitutional issues before the circuit court, but that court failed
to rule upon them, and appellants did not raise the omission by way of a Rule
59 motion, constitutional claims were not preserved for appellate review); Quillian
v. Evatt, 315 S.C. 489, 491, 445 S.E.2d 639, 640 (Ct. App. 1994) (where
appellant did not raise and trial judge did not rule on constitutional issues,
nor did appellant seek rulings by post-trial motions, appellate court could
not consider issues on appeal). 

AFFIRMED

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