Vessell v. Knagenhjelm

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

George Vessell, Appellant,

v.

Jane M.
Knagenhjelm, personally; The Estate of Ludvig Knagenhjelm; the Unknown Heirs
of Ludvig Knagenhjelm; Jane M. Knagenhjelm, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Ludvig Knagenhjelm and Kathy Knagenhjelm, Respondents.

Appeal from Dorchester County

James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-540 

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 5, 2011

APPEAL DISMISSED

George Vessell, pro se, of Summerville.

Christopher David Lizzi, of North
Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  On
appeal, George Vessell asserts multiple issues regarding a circuit court order
that memorializes an agreement between Vessell and Jane Knagenhjelm, Kathy Knagenhjelm,
and the estate and unknown heirs of Ludvig Knagenhjelm.  We dismiss[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority:  Calcutt v.
Calcutt, 282 S.C. 565, 572, 320 S.E.2d 55, 59 (Ct. App. 1984) ("It is
well settled an appeal will not be entertained from an order by consent.").

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HUFF, PIEPER,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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