Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-172 - Visser v. Quality Control Painting

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

Christine Visser, Appellant,

v.

Quality Control Painting, LLC, and Michael Edwards, Respondents.


Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-172
Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed April 18, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Keven Kurtis Kenison, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Matthew H. Henrikson, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Christine Visser appeals a circuit court order dismissing her appeal from a magistrate's decision for failure to file a notice of appeal sufficient to give notice of her grounds for appeal to Quality Control Painting, LLC and Michael Edwards (collectively, "QCP").  Visser argues the circuit court erred in dismissing her appeal because (1) her original notice of appeal provided adequate notice; (2) if the original notice was insufficient, the circumstances surrounding her appeal provided adequate notice when combined with the original notice; and (3) her supplemental notice of appeal provided adequate notice.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the original notice in and of itself provided adequate notice: State v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 314-15, 426 S.E.2d 766, 768-69 (1993) (holding similar exceptions listed in an original notice of appeal failed by themselves to apprise the other parties and courts of the grounds for appeal).

2.  As to whether the circumstances surrounding the appeal and the original notice provided adequate notice: Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Price v. Pickens Cnty., 308 S.C. 64, 67, 416 S.E.2d 666, 668 (Ct. App. 1992) ("The burden is on the appellant to provide a sufficient record such that this court can make an intelligent review.") (citation omitted). 

3.  As to whether the supplemental notice provided adequate notice: United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 307 S.C. 102, 107, 413 S.E.2d 866, 869 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding an issue was not preserved because the circuit court did not rule on the issue and the appellant failed to raise the issue in a motion to alter or amend) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.