Gaylord v. Gainey

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

Tamara Gaylord, Appellant,

v.

Ronnie Gainey, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000626

Appeal From Clarendon County
R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-058
Submitted February 14, 2024 – Filed February 21, 2024

AFFIRMED

Tamara Gaylord, of Sumter, pro se.

William Ceth Land, of Land Parker Welch LLC, of
Manning, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tamara Gaylord appeals an order of the circuit court affirming
the magistrate court's order, which held Ronnie Gainey was entitled to the eviction
of Gaylord. On appeal, Gaylord argues the circuit court erred by affirming the
magistrate court's order because the magistrate court (1) violated her right to due
process, (2) violated federal law by holding a hearing, and (3) erred by allowing a
hearing based on a retaliatory eviction. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR.

As to issue 1, we hold Gaylord's due process rights were not violated. Gaylord had
notice of the hearing, was represented by counsel at the hearing, and her attorney
had the right to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence. See
Parks v. Characters Night Club, 345 S.C. 484, 490, 548 S.E.2d 605, 608 (Ct. App.
2001) ("The Court of Appeals will presume that an affirmance by a Circuit Court
of a magistrate's judgment was made upon the merits whe[n] the testimony is
sufficient to sustain the magistrate's judgment and there are no facts that show the
affirmance was influenced by an error of law."); id. ("We therefore look to whether
the Circuit Court order is controlled by an error of law or is unsupported by the
facts."); Hadfield v. Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88, 94, 538 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ct. App.
2000) ("Unless we find an error of law, we will affirm the [circuit court's] holding
if there are any facts supporting [its] decision."); Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of
Myrtle Beach, 372 S.C. 230, 235, 642 S.E.2d 565, 567 (2007) ("Due process
requires (1) adequate notice; (2) adequate opportunity for a hearing; (3) the right to
introduce evidence; and (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.").
As to Gaylord's remaining arguments to issue 1, we hold they are not properly
before us on appeal because there is no evidence Gaylord raised them before the
magistrate court and the circuit court. See State v. Bailey, 368 S.C. 39, 43-44, 626
S.E.2d 898, 900 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding, in an appeal from magistrate's court to
circuit court, where an issue was never brought to the attention of the circuit court,
it was not appropriate for this court to review the issue); City of Columbia v. Ervin,
330 S.C. 516, 519-20, 500 S.E.2d 483, 485 (1998) (holding the Court of Appeals
should not have addressed the merits of an issue on appeal because the issue was
not raised to the circuit court as the intermediate appellate court and therefore
could not be raised for the first time in our Supreme Court or Court of Appeals).

As to issue 2, to the extent Gaylord is arguing that the magistrate court's August
2021 hearing should not have been held because she was in poor health and had a
direct exposure to Covid-19 prior to the hearing, we hold these arguments are not
properly before us on appeal because the record on appeal does not support that
these arguments were raised to and ruled on by the circuit court. See Bailey, 368
S.C. at 43-44, 626 S.E.2d at 900 (holding, in an appeal from magistrate's court to
circuit court, where an issue was never brought to the attention of the circuit court,
it was not appropriate for this court to review the issue); Ervin, 330 S.C. at 519-20,
500 S.E.2d at 485 (holding the Court of Appeals should not have addressed the
merits of an issue on appeal because the issue was not raised to the circuit court as
the intermediate appellate court and therefore could not be raised for the first time
in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals). To the extent Gaylord contends the
magistrate court's August 2021 hearing should not have been held because there
was a federal moratorium on evictions pursuant to the CDC Order issued on
August 3, 2021, we hold this issue is barred by the two-issue rule. See Atl. Coast
Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328, 730 S.E.2d 282, 284
(2012) ("Under the two[-]issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one
ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds
because the unappealed ground will become law of the case." (quoting Jones v.
Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010))). Although Gaylord
challenged the magistrate court's ruling that she was not a covered person under the
federally issued eviction moratorium on appeal to the circuit court, the circuit court
affirmed the magistrate court's ruling and also held that Gaylord's claim of
protection by the moratorium was moot because the eviction moratorium had been
stayed by the United States Supreme Court in Order No. 21A23, issued on August
26, 2021. The record on appeal does not establish that Gaylord argued against this
ruling at the circuit court, nor does Gaylord include an argument against mootness
in her appellate brief to this court. See Hill v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl.
Control, 389 S.C. 1, 22 n.11, 698 S.E.2d 612, 623 n.11 (2010) ("[T]he circuit court
has the authority to hear motions to alter or amend when it sits in an appellate
capacity and such motions are required to preserve issues for appeal where the
circuit court fails to rule on an issue."). Accordingly, this argument is procedurally
barred by the two-issue rule.

As to issue 3, there is no evidence Gaylord raised this issue before the magistrate
court and the circuit court. Accordingly, this issue is not properly before us on
appeal. See Bailey, 368 S.C. at 43-44, 626 S.E.2d at 900 (holding, in an appeal
from magistrate's court to circuit court, where an issue was never brought to the
attention of the circuit court, it was not appropriate for this court to review the
issue); Ervin, 330 S.C. at 519-20, 500 S.E.2d at 485 (holding the Court of Appeals
should not have addressed the merits of an issue on appeal because the issue was
not raised to the circuit court as the intermediate appellate court and therefore
could not be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals).

AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

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