Essie Ruth Ford v. Ralph Kline

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Essie Ruth Ford, Appellant, v. Ralph Kline, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2020-000061 Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-157 Submitted March 1, 2022 – Filed April 6, 2022 AFFIRMED Bronte Marie Anelli, of S.C. Legal Services, of Conway, for Appellant. James Austin Thomas, of Grooms & Thomas, LLC, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Essie Ruth Ford appeals the circuit court's order granting Ralph Kline's motion for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), SCRCP. On appeal, she argues the circuit court erred by relying on (1) pleadings outside of the complaint and (2) extrinsic and contested evidence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal."). AFFIRMED.1 WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.