Redmond v. E-Z Out Bail Bonds

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

Thomas E.
Redmond and Arrow Bail Bonding, Inc., Respondents,

v.

E-Z Out Bail
Bonds, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-145 

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March
7, 2012

AFFIRMED

Andrew F. Litvin, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

J. Thomas McBratney, III, of Florence, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: E-Z Out Bail Bonds, Inc. (E-Z Out) appeals the jury's damages award of
$220,397.24 to Thomas E. Redmond and Arrow Bail Bonding, Inc. (collectively
Arrow Bail Bonding).  On appeal, E-Z Out argues the trial court erred in
denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new
trial.  Because E-Z Out did not provide this court with an adequate record to
consider these arguments, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 210(h),
SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not
appear in the Record on Appeal."); McCall v.
IKON, 380 S.C. 649, 663, 670 S.E.2d
695, 703 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding the appellant "bears the burden of providing
this court with a record sufficient to allow appellate review"); In re
McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("[O]nly
grounds raised in the directed verdict motion may properly be reasserted in the
[JNOV] motion. . . ."); Marsh v S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub.
Transp., 298 S.C. 420, 423, 380 S.E.2d 867, 869 (Ct. App. 1989) (holding an
alternative motion for new trial that mirrors a JNOV motion is limited to the
grounds stated in the motion for directed verdict); Peay v Ross, 292
S.C. 535, 537, 357 S.E.2d 482, 483-84 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[A] motion for a
directed verdict is a prerequisite to a motion for a new trial on the ground
that the evidence does not support the verdict.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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