Jacqueline Miller v. Johnny Miller

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

Jacqueline Miller, Respondent,

v.

Johnny Miller, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000199

Appeal From York County
Thomas Henry White, IV, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-182
Submitted March 2, 2026 – Filed April 29, 2026

AFFIRMED

Johnny Miller, of Rock Hill, pro se.

Jacqueline Miller, of Rock Hill, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Johnny Miller (Husband) appeals a family court's order that
denied his motion to alter or amend the family court's final divorce decree granting
him and Jacqueline Miller (Wife) a divorce on the grounds of one-year continuous
separation. On appeal, Husband argues the family court erred in (1) prohibiting
five witnesses from testifying about their knowledge of Wife's alleged physical
abuse and (2) not granting Husband a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.1

We hold Husband's arguments are abandoned because they include no citation to
legal authority and consist solely of short conclusory statements that the family
court erred in prohibiting the witnesses from testifying and the evidence was
"overwhelmingly in favor" of showing that Wife physically abused him. See
Glasscock, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 348 S.C. 76, 81, 557 S.E.2d 689, 691 (Ct.
App. 2001) ("South Carolina law clearly states that short, conclusory statements
made without supporting authority are deemed abandoned on appeal and therefore
not presented for review."); Palmer v. State, 427 S.C. 36, 47, 829 S.E.2d 255, 261
(Ct. App. 2019) ("When a party provides no legal authority regarding a particular
argument, the argument is deemed abandoned and the court will not address the
merits of the issue."); Atl. Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C.
323, 327 n.1, 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 n.1 (2012) (determining that when an appellant's
"argument in [her] brief [wa]s purely a recitation of facts, devoid of any citation to
legal authority, with [only a] summary conclusion," the argument [was]
abandoned). Further, Husband never raised physical cruelty as a ground for
divorce in his pleadings and never amended or supplemented his pleadings to
include it. Therefore, this argument was not raised to and ruled upon by the family
court and is not preserved on appeal. See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530(A)(2) (2010)
("The family court has exclusive jurisdiction: . . . to hear and determine actions for
divorce a vinculo matrimonii . . . if requested by either party in the pleadings . . . ."
(emphasis added)); McAteer v. McAteer, 262 S.C. 475, 480, 205 S.E.2d 377, 379
(1974) (providing a ground for divorce not plead before trial constitutes a new
matter which may be introduced only by supplemental pleading); Doe v. Roe, 369
S.C. 351, 375-76, 631 S.E.2d 317, 330 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An issue cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the
[family court] to be preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.2

1
Wife did not file a brief. Although this court may take any action it deems
proper, including reversal, when a respondent fails to timely file a brief, the record
on appeal contains sufficient grounds for this court to affirm. See Rule 208(a)(4),
SCACR ("Upon the failure of respondent to timely file a brief, the appellate court
may take such action as it deems proper."); Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate
court may affirm any ruling, order, decision[,] or judgment upon any ground(s)
appearing in the [r]ecord on [a]ppeal.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.