Estate of Weinberg v. Laubshire

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

The Estate of Phoebe Weinberg, Respondent,

v.

Robert Laubshire, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-448
Submitted October 1, 2011 Filed October 11, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Robert Laubshire, pro se, for Appellant.

C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Laubshire appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion to vacate the registration of a foreign judgment against him, arguing the circuit court erred in not determining whether the ten-year enforcement period for the execution of a foreign judgment had expired.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Chastain v. Hiltabidle, 381 S.C. 508, 515, 673 S.E.2d 826, 829 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When an issue is raised to but not ruled upon by the [circuit] court, the issue is preserved for appeal only if the party raises the same issue in a Rule 59(e) motion."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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