Pepperman v. Edwards

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

Walter L. Pepperman, II and T. Ann Pepperman,
Appellants,

v.

Henry H. Edwards and Pamela J. Edwards, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002552

Appeal From Spartanburg County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-090
Submitted January 1, 2019 – Filed February 20, 2019

AFFIRMED

Walter L. Pepperman, II and T. Ann Pepperman, of
Campobello, pro se.

Henry H. Edwards and Pamela J. Edwards, of
Campobello, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Walter and Ann Pepperman appeal a circuit court order
affirming the magistrate court's denial of relief on their claim that Henry and
Pamela Edwards made misrepresentations during a sale of residential real property.
On appeal, the Peppermans argue (1) the magistrate court and circuit court erred by
failing to rule on their breach of implied warranty claim, (2) the magistrate court
and circuit court erred in their construction of the Residential Property Condition
Disclosure Statement related to the sale, and (3) the magistrate court's procedures
"fail[ed] to comport with the fair and orderly administration of justice." We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to Issue 1: Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529 S.E.2d 543,
546 (2000) ("It is well-settled 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."); Chastain v. Hiltabidle, 381 S.C. 508, 515, 673
S.E.2d 826, 829 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When an issue is raised to but not ruled upon by
the trial court, the issue is preserved for appeal only if the party raises the same
issue in a . . . motion [to alter or amend]."); Rule 19(d), SCRMC ("A motion to
alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than ten (10) days after notice of
the judgment . . . .").

As to Issue 2: Town of Summerville v. City of N. Charleston, 378 S.C. 107, 110,
662 S.E.2d 40, 41 (2008) ("Determining the proper interpretation of a statute is a
question of law, and this [c]ourt reviews questions of law de novo."); Hodges v.
Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) ("Under the plain meaning
rule, it is not the court's place to change the meaning of a clear and unambiguous
statute."); S.C. Code Ann. § 27-50-40(A) (Supp. 2018) ("[T]he owner of the real
property shall furnish to a purchaser a written disclosure statement."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 27-50-10(8) (2007) ("'Real property' means the lot or parcel and the
dwelling unit described in a real estate contract subject to this article."); Hodges,
341 S.C. at 87, 533 S.E.2d at 582 ("If the legislature's intent is clearly apparent
from the statutory language, a court may not embark upon a search for it outside
the statute.").

As to Issue 3: Staubes, 339 S.C. at 412, 529 S.E.2d at 546 ("It is well-settled 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."); Bryson v.
Bryson, 378 S.C. 502, 510, 662 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Ct. App. 2008) ("An issue is
deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised
in a brief but not supported by authority.").

AFFIRMED.1

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.