Carroll v. Anderson Brothers Bank

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

Leila Miriam
Carroll, Appellant,

v.

Anderson
Brothers Bank, Respondent.

Appeal From Horry County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-437 

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
11, 2011

AFFIRMED

Leila Miriam Carroll, pro se, of Waxhaw,
North Carolina.

Jon Rene Josey, of Florence, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Leila
Miriam Carroll appeals the trial court's order dismissing her breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Anderson Brothers Bank
(the Bank) based on lack of standing.  She argues the trial court erred in (1)
considering the Bank's argument concerning standing because it was not pled in
the Bank's answer and (2) finding she lacked standing.[1]  We affirm[2] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court
erred in considering the Bank's argument concerning standing because it was not
pled in the Bank's answer:  Grant v.
S.C. Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 356, 461 S.E.2d 388, 392 (1995)
(finding a due process claim must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial
court in order to be preserved for appellate review); Higgins v. Med. Univ.
of S.C.,  326 S.C. 592, 601, 486 S.E.2d 269, 274 (Ct. App. 1997)
(finding an issue is not preserved for review when the appellants failed to
object at the hearing and did not bring the issue to the trial court's
attention).

2.  As to whether the trial court
erred in finding Carroll lacked standing:  Chastain v. Hiltabidle,
  381 S.C. 508, 514-15, 673 S.E.2d 826, 829 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is well settled that, but for a very few exceptional
circumstances, an appellate court cannot address an issue unless it was raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."); Hickman
v. Hickman,  301 S.C. 455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App.
1990) ("A party cannot use Rule
59(e) to present to the court an issue the party could
have raised prior to judgment but did not."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ.,
concur.

[1] We find the Bank's argument that the notice of appeal
was untimely and insufficient is without merit.  Although Carroll did not
mention the October 2009 order in her notice of appeal, she did attach both the
original order and the order denying her Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to her
notice of appeal. See Weatherford v. Price, 340 S.C. 572, 577-78,
532 S.E.2d 310, 313 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding the clerical error of not
referring to the trial court's original order in the notice of appeal did not
merit a dismissal of the appeal because the order was attached to the notice of
appeal).

[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.