Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-200 - In the Matter of the Estate of Wallace Miles

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

Ex Parte: Willie Mae Miles, Appellant,

v.

In Re: Estate of Wallace Miles, Respondent.


Appeal From Aiken County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-200 
Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 3, 2011


AFFIRMED


Tom Griffin Woodruff, Jr, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Philip Herman Woolhiser, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Willie Mae Miles appeals a probate court holding that set aside a will executed by the decedent, Wallace Miles.  She argues the probate court improperly set aside the will for lack of sufficient capacity, res, and devisees because she lacked notice those issues would be considered during the will contest initiated by the decedent's son.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 460, 502 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ct. App. 1998) ("The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in the probate court to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Probate Code or probate court rules.  A motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, is not inconsistent with the Probate Code and is therefore applicable." (internal citations omitted)); see also Helms Realty, Inc. v. Gibson-Wall Co., 363 S.C. 334, 339-40, 611 S.E.2d 485, 487-88 (2005) (holding an appellant has the burden of providing a sufficient record for appellate review) (citations omitted); In re Estate of Cumbee, 333 S.C. 664, 674-75, 511 S.E.2d 390, 395 (Ct. App. 1999) (noting that when a probate judge grants certain relief not previously contemplated, the aggrieved party must move to alter or amend the judgment in order to preserve the issue for appeal to the circuit court).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


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