Benita Dinkins-Robinson v. Alan Ratner

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

Benita Dinkins-Robinson, Appellant,

v.

Alan Ratner, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000131

Appeal From Lee County
Kristi F. Curtis, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-094
Submitted February 1, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023

AFFIRMED

Benita Dinkins-Robinson, of Camden, pro se.

Stephen Bryan Doby, of Jennings & Jennings, PA, of
Bishopville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Benita Dinkins-Robinson appeals the circuit court's dismissal of
her complaint. On appeal, Robinson argues the circuit court erred in (1) failing to
allow her sufficient legal representation, (2) dismissing the case and failing to
provide her with due process, (3) failing to grant her motion to reconsider, and
(4) allowing Ratner's counsel to continue as counsel. We affirm.
First, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robinson's
motion for continuance because Robinson failed to file a notice of appearance with
the circuit court indicating she was represented by counsel. See Varat v. Bryant,
284 S.C. 289, 291, 325 S.E.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1985) ("Motions for
continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court], and [its]
ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Purex
Corp. v. Walker, 278 S.C. 388, 390, 296 S.E.2d 868, 869 (1982) ("Whether a judge
does or does not abuse his discretion depends upon the facts before him at the
time."); Rule 11(b), SCRCP ("Written notice of change of attorney must be served
as provided by Rule 5."); Rule 5(d), SCRCP ("All papers required to be served
upon a party. . . shall be filed with the court within five (5) days after service
thereof.").

Second, we hold the record on appeal is insufficient for this court to decide
whether Robinson was denied due process in the prior foreclosure action because
the record contains no evidence supporting her claims of a due process violation.
See Germain v. Nichol, 278 S.C. 508, 509, 299 S.E.2d 335, 335 (1983) ("Appellant
has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record upon which this
Court can make its decision."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will
not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.").

Third, we hold the record on appeal is insufficient for this court to decide whether
the circuit court erred in denying Robinson's motion to reconsider because the
record contains no evidence showing that Robinson filed or the circuit court ruled
upon a motion to reconsider. See Germain, 278 S.C. at 509, 299 S.E.2d at 335
("Appellant has the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record upon
which this Court can make its decision."); Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate
court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal.").

Fourth, we hold that Robinson's argument is not preserved for appeal because the
circuit court did not rule upon her allegations of a conflict of interest. See Elam v.
S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004) ("Issues and
arguments are preserved for appellate review only when they are raised to and
ruled on by the lower court."); Pelican Bldg. Centers of Horry-Georgetown, Inc. v.
Dutton, 311 S.C. 56, 60, 427 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1993) ("[W]here an issue has not
been ruled upon by the trial judge nor raised in a post-trial motion, such issue may
not be considered on appeal.").
AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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