Burnside v. Mathis

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Anthony Burnside, Appellant, v. J. Davida Mathis, Respondent. Appeal From Greenville County Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-727 Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed December 16, 2003 AFFIRMED Anthony Burnside of Columbia, for Appellant. Davida Mathis of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant, Anthony Burnside, brought a complaint against attorney J. Davida Mathis asserting a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. Burnside’s action stems from his payment of monies to Mathis for her representation of him in a criminal matter which resulted in Burnside’s conviction. The trial judge granted Mathis’ motion for summary judgment. Mathis appeals. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: ISSUE I: Gaskins v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 343 S.C. 666, 673-74, 541 S.E.2d 269, 273 (Ct. App. 2000), aff’d as modified, 354 S.C. 416, 581 S.E.2d 169 (2003) (a party who fails to move for recusal has not preserved the issue for appellate review); Sabb v. S.C. State Univ., 350 S.C. 416, 422, 567 S.E.2d 231, 234 (2002); Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 193, 470 S.E.2d 848, 850 (1996); Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235, 237-38, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994) (subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong); ISSUE II: In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 92, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) (a constitutional claim must be raised and ruled upon to be preserved for appellate review); Great Games, Inc., v. South Carolina Dep’t of Revenue, 339 S.C. 79, 85, 529 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2000) (where appellants raised constitutional issues before the circuit court, but that court failed to rule upon them, and appellants did not raise the omission by way of a Rule 59 motion, constitutional claims were not preserved for appellate review); Quillian v. Evatt, 315 S.C. 489, 491, 445 S.E.2d 639, 640 (Ct. App. 1994) (where appellant did not raise and trial judge did not rule on constitutional issues, nor did appellant seek rulings by post-trial motions, appellate court could not consider issues on appeal). AFFIRMED HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.