Supreme Court Seal South Carolina
Judicial Department
Site Map

2011-UP-099 - McMasters v. Charpia

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

Rene' McMasters, Respondent,

v.

H. Wayne Charpia and Charpia Residentials, LLC Defendants,

Of whom H. Wayne Charpia is the Appellant.


Appeal From Dorchester County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-099
Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 14, 2011


AFFIRMED


Howard W. Charpia, pro se, of Summerville, for Appellant.

Frank M. Cisa, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Howard W. Charpia, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial after judgment was entered against him in a 2004 construction defect suit.  Charpia argues: (1) the trial court violated Charpia's due process rights; (2) the trial court erred in not ruling on Charpia's Rule 60(b) motion; (3) the trial court erred in deciding Charpia's 2005 motion without leave from the appellate court; (4) the trial court violated a scheduling order; and (5) venue was improper.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court violated Charpia's due process rights: S.C. Nat'l Bank v. Cent. Carolina Livestock Mkt., Inc., 289 S.C. 309, 313, 345 S.E.2d 485, 488 (1986) ("The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.  Due process does not mandate any particular form of procedure.  Instead, due process is a flexible concept, and the requirements of due process in a particular case are dependent upon the importance of the interest involved and the circumstances under which the deprivation may occur.") (internal citations and quotations omitted.).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in not ruling on Charpia's Rule 60(b) motion: Rule 60(b), SCRCP (stating motions made on newly discovered evidence grounds must made within one year after the judgment was entered).

3.  As to Charpia's remaining issues:  Harkins v. Greenville Cnty., 340 S.C. 606, 619-620, 533 S.E.2d 886, 893 (2000) (stating an issue not ruled upon by the trial judge is not preserved for appeal); I’On v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422-23, 526 S.E.2d 716, 725 (2000) (stating parties should raise all necessary issues and arguments to trial court and attempt to obtain a ruling); In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) (noting South Carolina courts have adhered to the rule that where an issue has not been ruled upon by the trial judge nor raised in a post-trial motion, such issue may not be considered on appeal).

AFFIRMED.      

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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

© 2000-2014 South Carolina Judicial Department