Quaiel v. Quaiel

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

Karen Jean McSweeney Quaiel, Respondent,

v.

Timothy James Quaiel, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000765

Appeal From York County
Wayne M. Creech, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-009
Submitted October 1, 2018 – Filed January 4, 2019

AFFIRMED

Nicholas Daniel Mermiges, of Law Offices of Nick
Mermiges, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Connie H. Payne, of Burnette & Payne, PA, of Rock Hill,
and Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Timothy Quaiel appeals the family court's denial of his motion to
vacate the final divorce decree. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities: Rouvet v. Rouvet, 388 S.C. 301, 308, 696 S.E.2d 204,
207 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion made pursuant to
Rule 60(b) is within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id. ("The appellate
standard of review is limited to determining whether there was an abuse of
discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the order of the court is
controlled by an error of law or where the order is based on factual findings that
are without evidentiary support."); King v. King, 384 S.C. 134, 142, 681 S.E.2d
609, 614 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding issues must be raised to and ruled upon by
the family court to be preserved for appellate review); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C.
45, 71, 682 S.E.2d 843, 856 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting a contemporaneous objection
is required to preserve issues for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and THOMAS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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