Hickman v. Hickman
| Decision Date | 11 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1495,1495 |
| Citation | 392 S.E.2d 481,301 S.C. 455 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Donna M. HICKMAN, Appellant, v. Kenneth W. HICKMAN, Respondent. . Heard |
William J. Clifford, Charleston, for appellant.
Hans F. Paul, N. Charleston, for respondent.
This appeal by Donna M. Hickman reaches us after a remand following an appeal by her husband, Kenneth W. Hickman, from a family court order. See Hickman v. Hickman, 294 S.C. 486, 366 S.E.2d 21 (Ct.App.1988). The family court order equitably divided the marital property and granted other relief. The remand required the family court to make additional findings of fact on the issue of Mr. Hickman's being required to pay the college expenses of the parties' older son. The family court made those findings on remand and, apparently with the agreement of the parties, also made a further division of the personal property of the marriage. Mrs. Hickman later sought by a supplemental motion to alter or amend the judgment to have the family court apportion Mr. Hickman's civil service retirement fund. The family court denied the supplemental motion. We affirm.
The claim by Mrs. Hickman to an interest in Mr. Hickman's civil service retirement fund surfaced for the first time in her supplemental motion to alter or amend the judgment and, we note, after she changed counsel. See S.C.R.Civ.P. 59(e) ().
The family court properly denied Mrs. Hickman's supplemental motion to alter or amend the judgment. 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. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 705 F.Supp. 698, 701 (D.D.C.1989), vacated on other grounds, 707 F.Supp. 3 (D.D.C.1989) (); Smith v. Stoner, 594 F.Supp. 1091, 1118 (N.D.Ind.1984) (); Johnson v. City of Richmond, 102 F.R.D. 623, 623 (E.D.Va.1984) ().
We do not address Mrs. Hickman's contention regarding Rule 60(b). The motion to alter or amend the judgment, to which Mrs. Hickman's supplemental motion referred, was grounded on Rule 59(e) and not on Rule 60(b). Also, the family court never passed upon the contention. See Stanley v. Reserve Insurance Co., 238 S.C. 533, 121 S.E.2d 10 (1961) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal Conservation v. Dept. of Health
...185, 456 S.E.2d 436, 437 (Ct.App.1995) (citing generally C.A.H. v. L.H., 315 S.C. 389, 434 S.E.2d 268 (1993); Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 392 S.E.2d 481 (Ct.App. 1990)). A party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to present an issue to the court that could have been raised prior to judgme......
-
Spreeuw v. Barker
...appears only as an attachment to his Rule 59(e) motion. Accordingly, it cannot be considered on appeal. See 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......
-
Atlantic Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis
...the court to pass on, and they similarly are not a way to get new arguments in through the back door. See Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct.App.1990). Here, the parties raised the issue of the security deposit to the master; because the master candidly admitted ......
-
Burdeshaw v. Burdeshaw
... ... motion to present to the family court an issue the party ... could have raised prior to judgment but failed to do so); ... 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 ... ...
-
Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order
...to Rule 60(b)." Balloon Plantation v. Head Balloons, Inc., 303 S.C. 152, 157, 399 S.E.2d 439, 442 (Ct. App. 1990). Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 392 S.E.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1990). Relief from a final judgment must be had through Rule 60 which is the mechanism for relief from a judgment or ......
-
Rule 59. New Trials; Amendment of Judgments
...cannot use Rule 59(e) to present the court an issue the party could have raised prior to the judgment but did not." Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990). "There is no indication in the record the wife ever requested or the court ever ruled on a request ......
-
Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order
...to Rule 60(b)." Balloon Plantation v. Head Balloons, Inc., 303 S.C. 152, 157, 399 S.E.2d 439, 442 (Ct. App. 1990). Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 392 S.E.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1990). Relief from a final judgment must be had through Rule 60 which is the mechanism for relief from a judgment or ......
-
Rule 59. New Trials; Amendment of Judgments
...cannot use Rule 59(e) to present the court an issue the party could have raised prior to the judgment but did not." Hickman v. Hickman, 301 S.C. 455, 456, 392 S.E.2d 481, 482 (Ct. App. 1990). "There is no indication in the record the wife ever requested or the court ever ruled on a request ......