Lagroon v. Lagroon

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Rebecca Lagroon, Respondent, v. Robert Jay Lagroon, Appellant. Appeal from McCormick County Berry L. Mobley, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-046 Submitted January 6, 2006 – Filed January 20, 2006 AFFIRMED Robert Jay Lagroon, of Williamston, pro se. James J. Corbett and James E. Holler, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Robert Jay Lagroon appeals an order of the family court denying his motion to reconsider. On appeal, Lagroon argues his consent to a child custody and child support agreement was not voluntary because he took an over-the-counter drug before the hearing, his attorney forced him to enter into the agreement under duress, and his attorney misled him to enter into the agreement. In addition, Husband argues the family court erred in preventing him from using an audiotape of his conversations with his attorneys to prove the actual agreement to which he consented. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Forsythe v. Forsythe, 290 S.C. 253, 349 S.E.2d 405 (Ct. App. 1986) (holding when a party affirms the validity of a settlement agreement in family court, that party cannot later challenge the order incorporating it for lack of volition); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 457, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (1990) (holding an argument is not preserved for review when it is presented to the court for the first time in a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP). AFFIRMED. [1] HEARN, C.J., HUFF and BEATTY, JJ., concur. [1] We decide the case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.