Cleveland v. Russell

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 Cleveland, III, Appellant,

v.

Suzanne E. Russell, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002450

Appeal From Oconee County
Karen F. Ballenger, Family Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-358
Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

George Cleveland, III, of Seneca, pro se.

Suzanne E. Russell, of Seneca, pro se.

PER CURIAM: George Cleveland, III, appeals the family court's order, finding
he and Suzanne E. Russell were not common-law married. Cleveland argues he
met his burden of proof because the family court could have inferred from the
testimony he presented at the hearing that he and Russell intended to be married.

Cleveland filed a record on appeal, which included the family court's order and one
page of his Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion. The record on appeal did not include the
transcript from the hearing conducted by the family court. Because Cleveland did
not produce a sufficient record, we cannot conduct a de novo review. See Simmons
v. Simmons, 392 S.C. 412, 414, 709 S.E.2d 666, 667 (2011) ("In appeals from the
family court, this [c]ourt reviews factual and legal issues de novo."); Taylor v.
Taylor, 294 S.C. 296, 299, 363 S.E.2d 909, 911 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The burden is on
the appellant to furnish a sufficient record on appeal from which this court can
make an intelligent review."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will
not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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