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Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-215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.