Martin v. Walker

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

Thomas F.
Martin and John D. Martin, Respondents,

v.

David H.
Walker, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Ellis B. Drew, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-120

Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 23,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Michael F. Mullinax, of Anderson, for Appellant.

John Derrick Martin, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: David H.
Walker appeals the denial of his motion to set aside the judicial sale of a
piece of property in Anderson County, alleging that the master-in-equity erred
in refusing to allow Walker or anyone on his behalf to bid at the partition
sale of the property.   We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hill v. S.C.
Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1, 23, 698 S.E.2d 612,
624 (2010) ("[A] contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review."); Gissel
v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 243, 676 S.E.2d 320, 324 (2009) (stating a
party may not complain on appeal of an error that his own conduct induced).[2] 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

[2] Counsel for Walker made no objection to the ruling by
the master-in-equity prior to the judicial sale, and in fact, agreed by
stating, "I think that's reasonable for the court to do." However, at
a hearing following the judicial sale, counsel for Walker then objected
to the fact that the court prevented Walker from bidding at the sale of the
property. Walker filed a motion for reconsideration following the post judicial
sale hearing but not following the original ruling prior to the judicial sale.
Therefore, the issue presented on appeal is not preserved for this court's review.