Reaves v. Reaves

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

Willie D. Reaves,       
Respondent,

v.

Franklin C. Reaves,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Marion County

Mary E. Buchan, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-546

Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed October
27, 2004

AFFIRMED

Franklin C. Reaves, Appellant, Pro Se.

Willie D. Reaves, Respondent, Pro Se.

PER CURIAM:  Franklin C. Reaves appeals
from a bench warrant the family court issued upon his alleged failure to appear
as directed by a Rule to Show Cause and his failure to pay alimony.  The bench
warrant ordered that Reaves must pay his account current and court costs on
or before his release.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR,
and the following authorities:  Watson v. Watson, 319 S.C. 92, 93, 460
S.E.2d 394, 395 (1995) (“Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s power
to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in
question belong.”); Coon v. Coon, 356 S.C. 342, 588 S.E.2d 624, 628 (Ct.
App. 2003) (stating that as a general rule where there is no lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, the court’s judgment will be binding, even if affected
by irregularity which would have defeated the proceeding if objection had been
timely and properly made); 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.”); 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 judge to be preserved for appellate review.”); In re McCracken,
346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (stating a constitutional claim
must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and KITTREDGE,
JJ., concur. 

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