Gallman v. Estate of Gladys Medlin

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 In Re: Terri Gallman, Respondent, v. William Groce, Eutrilia G. Alewine, Joan Davis, Myrtle Lou G. Jones, Frances Lee Farmer, Carolyn Lee Comer, Paul Lee, Linda Lee, Wendy Lee, Charles Lee, Rhonda Lee, Donald Lee, Kathie Gallman, John O. Gallman, III., Randall Gallman, Joe Gallman, Helen Groce Southards, Joanne Groce Suits, Patricia Groce Wall, Sam Roberts, Buddy Roberts, Virginia Sally, Linda Groce, Dennis Groce, Reggie Cook and the Mary Martha Bible Class at First United Methodist Church at Hickory, North Carolina of which the Estate of Myrtle Lou G. Jones is the Appellant. Appeal from Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-215 Submitted March 1, 2010 - Filed March 15, 2010 AFFIRMED Arthur H. McQueen, Jr. of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Michael Pack, Anthony H. Randall and James B. Drennan, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this probate matter, the Estate of Myrtle Lou G. Jones challenges the circuit court's dismissal of its appeal from a probate court order for failure to serve the notice of intention to appeal on all parties. On appeal, the Estate argues the circuit court erred in relying on section 62-1-308 of the South Carolina Code as the exclusive rule governing the procedural requirements for appeals from probate court and argues application of Rule 5(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure to probate court appeals would relieve Appellant of its requirement to serve a notice of intent to appeal on parties in default.[1] We affirm[2] the order of the circuit court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-308(a) (2009) (requiring notice of intent to appeal be served on "all parties" within ten days after receipt of written notice of the appealed from order of the probate court); Rule 74, SCRCP (stating "the procedure on appeal to the circuit court from the judgment of an inferior court . . . shall be in accordance with the statutes providing such appeals."); Skinner v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 380 S.C. 91, 94, 668 S.E.2d 795, 796 (2008) ("The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provide no guidance in determining the jurisdiction of the circuit court."); In re Cretzmeyer, 365 S.C. 12, 14, 615 S.E.2d 116, 116-17 (2005) (affirming the dismissal of appellant's appeal from a probate court order for failure to comply with procedural requirements of § 62-1-308); State v. Brown, 358 S.C. 382, 387, 596 S.E.2d 39, 41 (2004) (noting that failure to comply with the procedural requirements for an appeal divests the court of appellate jurisdiction); Anderson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 314 S.C. 140, 143, 442 S.E.2d 179, 181 (1994) (holding the words of a statute should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand a statute's operation). AFFIRMED. PIEPER, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. [1] Appellant also challenges the failure of the probate court to render findings concerning the validity of Virginia Sally's acceptance of service and responsive pleadings. Because Appellant failed to seek a ruling on these issues, these arguments are not preserved for appellate review. See City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 16, 646 S.E.2d 879, 880 (2007) (holding issue raised to the circuit court when sitting in an appellate capacity was not preserved for appellate review where party did not seek a post-judgment ruling from the circuit court on the issue). [2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.