Amber Kopanski v. Lashauna Baker

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

V.K., a minor, by and through his Guardian Amber
Kopanski, Appellants,

v.

Lashauna Baker, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001019

Appeal From Horry County
B. Alex Hyman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-029
Submitted January 2, 2026 – Filed January 28, 2026

AFFIRMED

Howard Walton Anderson, III, of Truluck Thomason,
LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant.

S. Ashley Gwin, of McAngus, Goudelock, & Courie,
LLC, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Amber Kopanski, as guardian of minor V.K., appeals the circuit
court's denial of her motion for a new trial. On appeal, Kopanski argues the circuit
court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for a new trial after the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of Lashauna Baker even though Baker conceded V.K.
was entitled to damages during closing arguments. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.

We hold Kopanski's argument is not preserved for appellate review. See Wilder
Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that
an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal . . . ."); S.C. Dep't of Transp.
v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007)
("There are four basic requirements to preserving issues at trial for appellate
review. The issue must have been (1) raised to and ruled upon by the trial court,
(2) raised by the appellant, (3) raised in a timely manner, and (4) raised to the trial
court with sufficient specificity." (quoting Jean Hoefer Toal et al., Appellate
Practice in South Carolina 57 (2d ed. 2002))). Here, Kopanski did not argue at
trial or in her post-trial motions that the statements Baker made in her closing
argument amounted to a judicial admission of damages; instead, she asserts this
argument for the first time on appeal. See Miller v. Dillon, 432 S.C. 197, 207, 851
S.E.2d 462, 468 (Ct. App. 2020) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and
an alternate ground on appeal." (quoting State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587
S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) (per curiam)); Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 470,
719 S.E.2d 640, 644-45 (2011) (explaining that when an "[a]ppellant can point to
no instance where [its argument] was properly raised or ruled upon, to disregard
our issue preservation rules under these circumstances would render them
meaningless").

AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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