Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-022 - Dean v. Tompkins

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

Ruth Jonell Dean, Appellant,

v.

Amanda Tompkins and Anita Robinson, Respondents.


Appeal From McCormick County
William Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-022  
Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed January 25, 2012


AFFIRMED


Leon Edward Green, of Aiken, for Appellant.

Amanda Tompkins and Anita Robinson, pro se, of McCormick.

PER CURIAM: Ruth Jonell Dean appeals the circuit court's affirmance of the probate court's order finding she was not common-law married to Sherman Blair.  Dean argues the circuit court erred in (1) affirming the probate court because the probate court applied the wrong standard of proof and (2) not granting her request for a new trial because there was not a sufficient record to review the probate court.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in affirming the probate court because the probate court applied the wrong standard of proof: Medlock v. One 1985 Jeep Cherokee VIN 1JCWB7828FT129001, 322 S.C. 127, 132, 470 S.E.2d 373, 376 (1996) ("The appellant has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record upon which to make a decision."); Neely v. Thomasson, 365 S.C. 345, 349-50, 618 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2005) (holding the circuit court and the appellate court may not disturb the probate court’s findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses there is no evidence to support them).

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in not granting her request for a new trial because there was not a sufficient record to review the probate court: West v. Newberry Elec. Coop., 357 S.C. 537, 543, 593 S.E.2d 500, 503 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding an issue that is neither addressed by the circuit court in its final order nor raised by way of Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion is not preserved for review).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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