McMasters v. Charpia

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

Rene'
McMasters, Respondent,

v.

H. Wayne Charpia
and Charpia Residentials, LLC Defendants,

Of whom H.
Wayne Charpia is the Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-099

Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 14,
2011

AFFIRMED

Howard W. Charpia, pro se, of Summerville, for Appellant.

Frank M. Cisa, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Howard W.
Charpia, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial after
judgment was entered against him in a 2004 construction defect suit.  Charpia
argues: (1) the trial court violated Charpia's due process rights; (2) the
trial court erred in not ruling on Charpia's Rule 60(b) motion; (3) the trial
court erred in deciding Charpia's 2005 motion without leave from the appellate
court; (4) the trial court violated a scheduling order; and (5) venue was
improper.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court violated Charpia's due process rights: S.C. Nat'l
Bank v. Cent. Carolina Livestock Mkt., Inc., 289 S.C. 309, 313, 345
S.E.2d 485, 488 (1986) ("The fundamental requirement of due process
is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner.  Due process does not mandate any particular form of procedure.  Instead,
due process is a flexible concept, and the requirements of due process in a
particular case are dependent upon the importance of the interest involved and
the circumstances under which the deprivation may occur.") (internal
citations and quotations omitted.).

2.  As to whether the trial
court erred in not ruling on Charpia's Rule 60(b) motion: Rule 60(b), SCRCP (stating
motions made on newly discovered evidence grounds must made within one year
after the judgment was entered).

3.  As to Charpia's remaining issues:  Harkins v. Greenville Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 619-620, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000)
(stating an issue not ruled upon by the trial judge is not preserved for
appeal); I’On v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422-23, 526
S.E.2d 716, 725 (2000) (stating parties should raise all necessary issues and
arguments to trial court and attempt to obtain a ruling); In re Estate of
Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) (noting South
Carolina courts have adhered to the rule that where an issue has not been ruled
upon by the trial judge nor raised in a post-trial motion, such issue may not
be considered on appeal).

AFFIRMED.      

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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