PER CURIAM: Michel D. Haynes appeals the master-in-equity's order finding his claim for payment of a promissory note (the Note) Saverne Haynes executed and made payable to the Reverend Efford Haynes was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under section 15-3-530 of the South Carolina Code (2005). On appeal, Michel argues the master erred by (1) finding the Note was not a negotiable instrument and applying the three-year statute of limitations applicable
1
to contracts under section 15-3-530, (2) finding Michel was not an assignee of the Note and therefore lacked standing to bring a claim for payment of the Note, (3) applying the defense of equitable setoff, (4) relying on parol evidence, and (5) failing to separately state its conclusions of law. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.1
We hold the master did not err in finding Michel's breach of contract claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under section 15-3-530 because the Note was not a negotiable instrument under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).2See § 15-3-530 (providing for a three-year statute of limitations in a contract action); Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) ("The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature."); id. ("Where the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning."); Whitaker v. Limeco Corp., 32 So. 3d 429, 435 (Miss. 2010) ("[T]he words 'payable to the order of' or payable 'to [identified payee] or order' must appear within the instrument in order to qualify it as a negotiable instrument, . . . ."); 11 Am. Jur. 2d Bills and Notes § 37 ("The words 'payable to the order of' or payable 'to (identified payee) or order' must appear within the instrument in order to qualify it as a negotiable instrument. An instrument making a promise to pay, but expressly excluding or lacking the words 'payable to order or to bearer,' is nonnegotiable."). Further, we find Michel's argument concerning the continuous accrual doctrine is not preserved for appellate review because it was neither raised to nor ruled on by the master. See 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."); Stanley v. Atl. Title Ins. Co., 377 S.C. 405, 413, 661 S.E.2d 62, 66 (2008) (finding an issue is unpreserved for appellate review when the argument on appeal differs from the argument raised below). We further hold the master
2
separately stated his conclusions of law with supporting factual findings. See Rule 52(a), SCRCP ("In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, . . . .").3
AFFIRMED.4
THOMAS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.
3