Shaffer v. Bacot

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE RECITED OR RELIED ON IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Dale Shaffer, Pro Se Appellant, v. Adam Bacot, Respondent. Appeal From Greenwood County Wyatt T. Saunders, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-339 Submitted May 12, 2004 – Filed May 18, 2004 AFFIRMED Dale Shaffer, of Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia, for Appellant. R. Davis Howser and Andrew E. Haselden, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this legal malpractice action, Dale Shaffer appeals the order of the trial court granting Adam Bacot’s motion to strike portions of Shaffer’s complaint. Shaffer argues the court erred in granting the motion to strike and that the process of litigating legal malpractice claims violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: Totaro v. Turner, 273 S.C. 134, 135, 254 S.E.2d 800, 801 (1979) (stating a motion to strike is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court; the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of discretion); Rule 12(f), SCRCP (stating the trial court may order stricken from any pleading “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter”); Beaufort County v. Butler, 316 S.C. 465, 468, 451 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1994) (stating constitutional claims must be raised and ruled upon below to be preserved for appeal). AFFIRMED. ANDERSON, HUFF, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.