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

Regions Bank, Respondent,

v.

Stonebridge Development Group, LLC; Plantation Isle Equity Group, LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company; Carolina Federal Savings Bank; Plantation Isle Equity Partners General Partnership; Michael Aiello; Frank M. Harvey a/k/a Francis M. Harvey; Brandon Advertising, Inc.; Rubeling & Associates, Inc.; Carolina Custom Docks, LLC; J. Mark Caldwell, individually; and Carolina Clearing & Grading, Inc., Defendants,

Of whom Frank M. Harvey a/k/a Francis M. Harvey is the Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-276
Heard April 11, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012

AFFIRMED

Lawrence J. Gebhardt, of Baltimore, Maryland and Lee Anne Walters, Rutledge Young, III, and Charles S. Altman, all of Charleston, for Appellant.

Sarah Patrick Spruill, of Greenville and Stanley H. McGuffin and Louise M. Johnson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Frank Harvey appeals the master's order declining to set aside default judgment. On appeal, Harvey argues the master erred by (1) determining he was properly served a summons and complaint and (2) not holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the master erred in determining Harvey was properly served:  Fassett v. Evans, 364 S.C. 42, 47, 610 S.E.2d 841, 843 (Ct. App. 2005) ("It is the plaintiff[']s burden to show that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant."); Richardson Constr. Co. v. Meek Eng'g & Constr., Inc., 274 S.C. 307, 311, 262 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1980) ("An affidavit of service is [p]rima facie evidence of service which may be impeached by extrinsic evidence."); Patel v. S. Brokers, Ltd., 277 S.C. 490, 493, 289 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1982) (holding a defendant's mere denial of service is insufficient to rebut the presumption).

2. As to whether the master erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing: S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (holdingissues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal); Knight v. Waggoner, 359 S.C. 492, 496, 597 S.E.2d 894, 896 (Ct. App. 2004) (arguments made for first time on appeal are not preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.