Tina Ferrier v. Harborstone, LLC

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

Tina Ferrier, Respondent,

v.

Harborstone, LLC d/b/a Harborstone Apartments,
Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2025-000634

Appeal From Charleston County
George M. McFaddin, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-063
Submitted January 2, 2026 – Filed February 11, 2026

AFFIRMED

Christopher William Nickels and Amanda Marie Gaston,
both of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

D. Scott Drescher, of Bostic Law Group, P.A., of
Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Harborstone, LLC d/b/a Harborstone Apartments (Harborstone)
appeals the circuit court's order denying its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
compel arbitration, and its motion to reconsider. On appeal, Harborstone argues
the circuit court erred in denying its motion because it attached the signed lease
agreement (Lease Agreement) to its motion to reconsider, which cured the prior
evidentiary deficiency. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold that whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it failed to
compel arbitration in light of a lease agreement that requires arbitration is not
preserved for appellate review because Harborstone presented the Lease
Agreement for the first time with its motion to reconsider. See State v. Parker, 381
S.C. 68, 95, 671 S.E.2d 619, 633 (Ct. App. 2008) (indicating the decision to grant
or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard);
Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45, 65, 682 S.E.2d 843, 853 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An
abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is controlled by some error of
law or where the order, based upon the findings of fact, is without evidentiary
support."); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 22, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779
(2004) ("Rule 59(e) in the South Carolina and federal rules of civil procedure is
practically identical."); id. at 22-23, 602 S.E.2d at 779 ("[T]he United States
Supreme Court explicitly has described a motion under federal Rule 59(e) as one
which 'involves reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on
the merits.'" (quoting Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989)));
id. at 23, 602 S.E.2d at 779-80 ("Issues and arguments are preserved for appellate
review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the [circuit] court."); Spreeuw,
385 S.C. at 68-69, 682 S.E.2d at 855 (finding the defendant's form about expenses
appeared "only as an attachment to his Rule 59(e) motion" and could not be
considered on appeal); 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.1

MCDONALD, HEWITT, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.