Kinsale v. Kinsale

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

Jessica Erica Kinsale, Appellant,

v.

Kirk Shawn Kinsale, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001919

Appeal From Richland County
Monét S. Pincus, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-270
Heard June 5, 2017 – Filed July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

V. Kana Rahman, of Kana Law, LLC, and Bertila Ivane
Delora Boyd-Bostic, of Bostic & Boyd, LLC, both of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Thomas M. Neal, III, of Law Offices of Thomas M. Neal,
III, and Cyril B. Rush, Jr., of The Rush Law Firm, LLC,
both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this divorce action, Jessica Erica Kinsale (Wife) appeals the
family court's decision on several issues involving marital property and equitable
distribution. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether our court lacks jurisdiction over this matter due to an
untimely notice of appeal and an untimely Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion by Wife:
Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR ("When a timely . . . motion to alter or amend the
judgment (Rules 52 and 59, SCRCP) . . . has been made, the time for appeal for all
parties shall be stayed and shall run from receipt of written notice of entry of the
order granting or denying such motion." (emphasis added)); Camp v. Camp, 386
S.C. 571, 575, 689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) ("A timely post-trial motion, including
a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, stays the
time for an appeal for all parties until receipt of written notice of entry of the order
granting or denying such motion." (emphasis added)).

2. As to whether the family court erred in determining the daycare business
was marital property: S.C. Code Ann. § 20-3-630(A) (2014) (providing marital
property includes all real and personal property the parties acquired during the
marriage and owned as of the date of filing or commencement of marital
litigation); Wilburn v. Wilburn, 403 S.C. 372, 382, 743 S.E.2d 734, 740 (2013) ("A
party claiming an equitable interest in property upon divorce bears the burden of
proving the property is marital. If the party presents evidence to show the property
is marital, the burden shifts to the other spouse to present evidence to establish the
property's nonmarital character." (citation omitted)).

3. As to whether the family court erred in not ruling on the issue of property
taxes: Floyd v. Floyd, 365 S.C. 56, 73, 615 S.E.2d 465, 474 (Ct. App. 2005)
(providing that when the family court makes a general ruling on an issue, but does
not address the specific argument raised by the appellant and the appellant does not
make a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling
on the argument, this court cannot consider the argument), overturned on other
grounds by 2008 S.C. Acts 211, § 1.

4. As to all remaining issues: McComb v. Conard, 394 S.C. 416, 426-27, 715
S.E.2d 662, 667 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hen an appellant neither raises an issue at
trial nor through a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion, the issue is not preserved for
appellate review." (quoting Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634 S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct.
App. 2006))); id. at 427, 715 S.E.2d at 667 ("When a party receives an order that
grants certain relief not previously contemplated or presented to the trial court, the
aggrieved party must move, pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to alter or amend the
judgment in order to preserve the issue for appeal." (alteration by court) (quoting
In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998))).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.