Not to be Published

PER CURIAM:

Louis Brown appeals the trial court's ruling that Brown does not possess title to fifty-five acres of property (Property) in Berkeley County. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to Brown's argument the trial court erred in failing to find the Property existed within the excess acreage of the Respondent Landowners: Lake View Acres Dev. Co. v. Tindal, 306 S.C. 477, 480, 412 S.E.2d 457, 459 (Ct. App. 1991) ("[I]t is elementary `that boundaries govern acreage and inaccuracies relating to the area of a tract are generally immaterial['] if the description clearly identifies the land conveyed and its boundaries." (quoting Brownlee v. Miller, 208 S.C. 252, 260, 37 S.E.2d 658, 661 (1946))); Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 331 S.C. 398, 435, 210, 503 S.E.2d 191, 210 (1998) ("[I]n an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, not on the alleged weakness of the defendant's title.").

As to Brown's argument the trial court erred in finding that Brown did not possess title to the Property on the basis of adverse possession: McDaniel v. Kendrick, 386 S.C. 437, 442, 688 S.E.2d 852, 855 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the party asserting adverse possession must show by clear and convincing evidence of continuous, hostile, open, actual, notorious, and exclusive possession); Getsinger v. Midlands Orthopaedic Profit Sharing Plan, 327 S.C. 424, 430, 489 S.E.2d 223, 226 (Ct. App. 1997) (stating occasional and temporary use or occupation does not constitute adverse possession); Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 13-14, 681 S.E.2d 6, 13 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating while the legal owner need not have actual knowledge the claimant is claiming property adversely, the hostile possession should be so notorious that the legal owner by ordinary diligence should have known of it); Clark v. Hargrave, 323 S.C. 84, 87, 473 S.E.2d 474, 476-77 (Ct. App. 1996) (stating that although "color of title draws the constructive possession of the whole premises to the actual possession of a part only, and is evidence of the extent of the possession claimed, it is not of itself evidence of adverse possession, and it does not follow that adverse possession can be proved by less evidence when the entry is under color of title than when it is not").

As to Brown's argument the trial court erred in failing to find that his property was upon the properties of the defendants who failed to make any objection or appearance: 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."); Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 58, 403 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1991) (holding when a trial court fails to address a specific argument raised by the appellant, the appellant must make a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to obtain a ruling on the argument or the matter is not preserved for appellate review).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.