THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF
In The Court of Appeals
Bettyann L. Talley, Respondent,
Nancy D. Jonas, Appellant.
Curtis L. Coltrane, Master In Equity and Special Circuit Judge
Unpublished Opinion No.
Submitted August 1, 2005 – Filed September 14, 2005
Nancy D. Jonas, of Beaufort, for Appellant.
Bettyann L. Talley, of
Savannah, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Nancy D. Jonas appeals from the master’s order denying her motion for stay of execution of a judgment. She argues the master erred in denying her motion to stay execution of an unsatisfied judgment. She alleges errors from several court proceedings, including some in federal court. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. The master did not err in denying Jonas’s motion to stay execution: Rule 225, SCRCP (generally, a stay of execution is unnecessary as an appeal stays the proceedings). However, a judgment directing the payment of money is an exception to this rule. See Rule 225(b)(1), SCRCP (providing exception to the general rule of stays); S.C. Code Ann. § 18-9-130 (Supp. 2004) (explaining notice of appeal does not stay certain matters including money judgments); see Barfield v. Barnes, 108 S.C. 1, 93 S.E. 425 (1917) (finding a judge could stay execution of a decree until the party could seek permanent relief); see also generally B. F. Hunt v. Smith, 18 S.C. Eq. 277 (1 Rich. Eq. 1845) (describing a stay of execution as an injunction); MailSource, LLC v. M.A. Bailey & Associates, 356 S.C. 363, 367, 588 S.E.2d 635, 637-38 (Ct. App. 2003) (mentioning an abuse of discretion standard for review of temporary injunctive relief).
2. The other
issues Jonas raises are not properly before this court. Rule 203(e)(3),
SCACR (providing the form and content of a notice of appeal, which includes
information about the order from which the appeal is taken). Furthermore,
to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and
ruled upon by the trial court. Lucas v. Rawl Family Ltd. P’ship,
359 S.C. 505, 511, 598 S.E.2d 712, 715 (2004); see also Harkins
HEARN, C.J. and STILWELL and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.