The Supreme Court of South Carolina

Peggy D. Conits, Respondent,

v.

Spiro E. Conits, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001961

ORDER

We deny the Petition for Rehearing. The attached opinion is substituted for the 

previous opinion, which is withdrawn. The only change is to the final sentence. 

s/ Donald W. Beatty C.J.

s/ John W. Kittredge J.

s/ Kaye G. Hearn J.

s/ John Cannon Few J.

s/ George C. James, Jr. J.

Columbia, South Carolina

January 17, 2018
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

Peggy D. Conits, Respondent,

v.

Spiro E. Conits, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001961

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Greenville County

David G. Guyton, Family Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27749

Submitted October 24, 2017 – Filed November 15, 2017

Withdrawn, Substituted, and Refiled January 17, 2018

REVERSED AND REMANDED

David Alan Wilson, of The Law Offices of David A. 

Wilson, LLC, and Kenneth C. Porter, of Porter & 

Rosenfeld, both of Greenville, for Petitioner.

Timothy E. Madden, Nelson Mullins Riley & 

Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Spiro E. Conits filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the 

decision of the court of appeals in Conits v. Conits, 417 S.C. 127, 789 S.E.2d 51 (Ct. 

App. 2016). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, reverse the 

decision, and remand to the court of appeals.
Peggy D. Conits and her husband Spiro litigated many issues in their divorce 

action in family court, but we address only one—the size and value of a farm Spiro 

owns in Greece. Spiro appealed the family court's ruling on this issue, but the court 

of appeals found the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The court of 

appeals understood Spiro to argue on appeal the farm "does not exist," but that at 

trial he "made no arguments as to the existence of the . . . farm." 417 S.C. at 137, 

789 S.E.2d at 56. We find Spiro made the same argument on appeal he made at trial. 

The issue is preserved. 

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in the court of appeals' opinion. 

417 S.C. at 133-36, 789 S.E.2d at 54-56. At trial, the parties presented conflicting 

evidence about the size and value of the farm in Greece. Spiro admitted he owns a 

one-half interest in a three-acre farm with a fair market value of $43,750. Peggy 

claimed the farm is thirty acres with a fair market value of $1,420,200. As the court 

of appeals observed, "the parties argued about its value and whether the property 

was three or thirty acres." 417 S.C. at 137, 789 S.E.2d at 56

The family court found the farm is thirty acres and assigned it a value of 

$1,420,000. Spiro filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 

59(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. He argued—among other 

things—Peggy "completely misrepresented or misunderstood [Spiro's] ownership 

interests in real estate in Greece and the court erred in adopting such 

misrepresentation as fact without evidentiary support." Spiro specifically argued he 

"does not own a thirty-acre farm in Greece" and "[his] interest in [the three-acre . . . 

farm] is worth between $20,000 and $21,875." The family court denied the motion.

On appeal to the court of appeals, Spiro admitted he owns a three-acre farm 

in Greece and claimed he does not own a thirty-acre farm. Appellant's Br. 12. Spiro 

argued in his brief to the court of appeals, 

At trial, [Spiro] clarified and corrected his ownership in 

the various properties in Greece and confirmed his 

ownership in a three-acre . . . farm as opposed to a thirtyacre farm. He testified at trial that he only owns three 

acres in Greece. [Spiro] simply does not own a thirty-acre 

farm in Greece.

Id. Spiro then argued in his brief there is "no support for [Peggy's] 'opinion' as to 

the value of the farm" and the family court's ruling "should be removed in its entirety 
and replaced with findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the three-acre 

. . . farm." Appellant's Br. 15. 

The words Spiro used to make his argument concerning the size and value of 

the farm in Greece changed from the family court to his Rule 59(e) motion to his 

brief at the court of appeals. In fact, Spiro confused the true issue when he described 

it in his brief to the court of appeals as, "Should the Family Court Include in the 

Marital Estate an Asset That Does Not Even Exist," and repeatedly and emphatically 

argued that "no such asset even exists." Considering Spiro's arguments practically, 

however, we clearly see that his argument was the same at each stage of these 

proceedings—he does not own a thirty-acre farm in Greece; he owns a three-acre 

farm; and it is not worth anything near what Peggy claims or the family court found. 

See Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461, 470, 719 S.E.2d 640, 644 (2011) ("We 

are mindful of the need to approach issue preservation rules with a practical eye and 

not in a rigid, hyper-technical manner."). When Spiro argued in his Rule 59(e) 

motion and wrote in his brief to the court of appeals that he "does not own a thirtyacre farm in Greece," he did not argue there was no farm. Rather, he argued the farm 

he admitted he owns is not thirty acres, and is not worth $1,420,000. 

The issue raised at the court of appeals is precisely the same one Spiro raised 

to the family court at trial and in his Rule 59(e) motion. The family court ruled on 

the issue, and thus it is preserved. See Herron, 395 S.C. at 465, 719 S.E.2d at 642 

(stating "issue preservation requires that an issue be raised to and ruled upon by the 

trial judge"). 

Accordingly, we REVERSE the court of appeals' ruling that the issue 

concerning the size and value of the farm in Greece is not preserved for appellate 

review. We REMAND to the court of appeals to rule on the merits of the issue and 

to consider any other issues that arise as a result of its ruling—including whether the 

status of the farm is still an issue, and if it is, whether the farm is marital or nonmarital property. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.