Blackwell v. Birket 2

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

Maureen
Blackwell and Walter L. Blackwell, III,  #2 Appellants,

v.

Janis Birket,
Jeromy Birket and Does 1 through 20,  Defendants,

Of Whom Janis
Birket and Jeromy Birket are the Respondents.

Appeal From Richland County

 Leslie K. Riddle, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-340 

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 29,
2010

AFFIRMED

Maureen Blackwell and Walter L. Blackwell, III, both pro se, of
Columbia, for Appellants.

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Following
the circuit court's dismissal of Walter L. Blackwell, III and Maureen Blackwell's
(collectively the Blackwells) complaint, the Blackwells filed an almost
identical complaint in family court.  The Blackwells appeal from the family
court's order finding it lacked jurisdiction over their complaint and awarding
Janis and Jeromy Birket $2,500 in attorney's fees.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As
to the Blackwells' jurisdictional arguments: See Blackwell v. Birket, 2010-UP-330 (Ct. App. Filed June
29, 2010) (finding the circuit court had jurisdiction over the complaint
filed by the Blackwells). 

2.  As to whether the family court erred in finding the Blackwells were required to wait to file
their complaint in family court until after this court issued an opinion in Blackwell: In
re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551
S.E.2d 235, 239 (2001) ("A bald assertion, without supporting argument,
does not preserve an issue for appeal.").     

3.  As to whether the family court erred in instructing the
Blackwells to pay $2,500 in attorney's fees:  ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, L.P. v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) (stating
an unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case).[2]

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS,
GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

[2] The Blackwells only appealed the award of attorney's
fees pursuant to South Carolina's Frivolous Proceedings Act (the Act); however,
Janis and Jeromy Birket requested attorney's fees pursuant to both the Act and
Rule 11, SCRCP.