Reaves v. Reaves

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDTIAL VALUE AND 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 Reaves, Respondent,

v.

Franklin Reaves, Appellant.

Appeal From Marion County

 Jerry D. Vinson, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-114

Submitted March 1, 2007 – Filed March 7, 2007   

DISMISSED

Franklin C. Reaves, of Chadbourn, for Appellant

Willie D. Reaves, of Mullins, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The brief and record in this matter are unclear at best. Because this brief fails to clearly present any argument, the issues contained in it are not properly preserved for appellate review.  See Langehans v. Smith, 347 S.C. 348, 352, 554 S.E.2d 681, 683 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating an issue that is not sufficiently argued is not preserved for appellate review) (citation omitted).  Moreover, the sole issue for determination appears to deal with the application of Rule 225, SCACR, regarding a stay of an obligation for the payment of alimony.  Rule 225(b)(6), SCACR, expressly excludes orders requiring payment for support of a spouse from the automatic stay provision of Rule 225(a), SCACR.  Therefore, pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, this court need not address this issue.  Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED.[1]

ANDERSON, KITTREDGE, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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