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Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-022  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.