Martha Coleman v. Jeffrey Coleman

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

Martha M. Coleman, Respondent,

v.

Jeffrey W. Coleman and Brooks Walters, Defendants,

Of whom Martha M. Coleman is the Respondent and
Brooks Walters is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001209

Appeal From Sumter County
Thomas M. Bultman, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-228
Submitted June 1, 2025 – Filed July 9, 2025

AFFIRMED

J. Michael Taylor, of Taylor/Potterfield, of Columbia;
and William Andrew Wallace Buxton, of The Law Office
of William A.W. Buxton, LLC, of Sumter; both for
Appellant.

Christopher Ryan DuRant, of Johnson DuRant, LLC, of
Manning, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Brooks Walters appeals the family court's order denying his
motion to reconsider its order holding him in civil contempt for failure to comply
with the terms of a supplemental temporary order in an action Martha Coleman
filed against Walters for paternity and child support. On appeal, Walters argues
the family court erred in denying his motion because (1) the family court lacked
personal jurisdiction over him and (2) the law of the case did not preclude the
family court from reconsidering whether personal jurisdiction was proper. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the issue of personal jurisdiction is not preserved for appellate review
because Walters did not challenge personal jurisdiction at the hearing where the
court held him in civil contempt. See Williams v. Williams, 436 S.C. 550, 558, 873
S.E.2d 785, 790 (Ct. App. 2022) ("An appellate court reviews decision of the
family court de novo."); Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731,
733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court] to be
preserved for appellate review."); Bakala v. Bakala, 352 S.C. 612, 629, 576 S.E.2d
156, 165 (2003) ("Objections to personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter
jurisdiction, are waived unless raised."); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456,
392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990) ("A party cannot use Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] to
present to the court an issue the party could have raised prior to judgment but did
not.").

2. We hold that although the family court erred in denying Walters's motion for
reconsideration based upon the law of the case doctrine, the family court properly
denied his motion because Walters waived personal jurisdiction by failing to raise
the matter to the family court at the hearing where the court held him in civil
contempt. See Williams, 436 S.C. at 558, 873 S.E.2d at 790 ("An appellate court
reviews decision of the family court de novo."); Terry v. Terry, 400 S.C. 453,
456-57, 734 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2012) ("A temporary order of the family court is
without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Such orders are, by definition,
temporary—they neither decide any issue with finality nor affect a substantial right
within the meaning of [Section 14-3-330(2) of the South Carolina Code (2017)]."
(citation omitted)); § 14-3-330(2)(a) (providing for immediate appeal from a final
order "affecting a substantial right made in an action when such order . . . in effect
determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be
taken or discontinues the action"); Shirley's Iron Works, Inc. v. City of Union, 403
S.C. 560, 573, 743 S.E.2d 778, 785 (2013) ("An unappealed ruling is the law of the
case and requires affirmance."); but see id. ("The doctrine of the law of the case
applies to an order or ruling which finally determines a substantial right. . . .
Ordinarily an interlocutory order which merely decides some point or matter
essential to the progress of the cause, collateral to the issues in the case, is not
binding as the law of the case, and may be reconsidered and corrected by the court
before entering a final order on the merits." (quoting Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84, 89,
382 S.E.2d 471, 473 (Ct. App. 1989))); Bakala, 352 S.C. at 629, 576 S.E.2d at 165
("Objections to personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, are waived
unless raised."); Hickman, 301 S.C. at 456, 392 S.E.2d at 482 ("A party cannot use
Rule 59(e) to present to the court an issue the party could have raised prior to
judgment but did not."); see also Terry, 400 S.C. at 457, 734 S.E.2d at 648
("Perceived errors in family court temporary orders are to be redressed . . . at the
final hearing. For issue preservation purposes, any such challenge must be placed
on the record at the commencement of the final hearing.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

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