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
Larius G. Woodson and Maurissa Woodson, Appellants,
DLI Properties, LLC, Allen Tate Co, Inc., Melia C. Faile, and Alan L. Cauthen,
of whom Allen Tate Co. and Melia C. Faile are the Respondents.
Appeal From Lancaster County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-291
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 14, 2011
John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for Appellants.
Thomas L. Ogburn, III, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Larius G. Woodson and Maurissa Woodson (the Woodsons) appeal a circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Allen Tate Co., Inc. (ATC) and Melia C. Faile on claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices. They raise a number of issues addressing whether summary judgment was appropriate. We affirm for failure to provide a sufficient record.
"Summary judgment is proper when it is clear there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Bowen v. Lee Process Sys. Co., 342 S.C. 232, 235, 536 S.E.2d 86, 87 (Ct. App. 2000). In Bowen v. Lee Process Systems Co., this court vacated a trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for more specific findings and analysis because the trial court's "fail[ure] to articulate the reasons for its action on the record or enter a written order outlining its rationale . . ." prevented this court from sufficiently reviewing whether summary judgment was appropriate. Id. at 235-36, 241, 536 S.E.2d at 88, 91.
Here, we cannot determine whether summary judgment was appropriate because the trial court's order fails to articulate its reasons for granting summary judgment. However, we do not vacate and remand this case because the trial court might have articulated its decision during the summary judgment hearing and the Woodsons failed to provide a hearing transcript. Because the Woodsons failed to satisfy their burden of providing a sufficient record, therefore, we affirm the appeal. See 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)).
HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.