Thompson v. Waters

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

Wade and Gertrude Thompson,       
Appellant,

v.

Van Waters and Rogers, Inc.,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-240

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed April
13, 2004

AFFIRMED

William Ashley Jordan, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Samuel W. Outten, John P. Riordan, Lane W. Davis, of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to South
Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: 
Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 460, 535 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2000)
(holding an issue that had been raised to but not ruled upon by the trial court
was not preserved for review, where the appellant failed to make a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend the judgment); see Grant v. South Carolina
Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 356, 461 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1995) (holding
an inaccuracy in the trial court’s order must be raised to the trial court by
way of a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment before the inaccuracy
may be challenged on appeal); see also Noisette v. Ismail, 304
S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding an issue was not preserved
for appellate review because the trial court did not explicitly rule on it at
trial and the appellant made no Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment).

AFFIRMED. [1]

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and HOWARD, JJ., concurring.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving
any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.