Green-Daniels v. Briggs

PER CURIAM: Eretha M

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Eretha M. Green-Daniels,       
Appellant,

v.

Floyd Briggs,       
Respondent.

Appeal From Richland County

L. Henry McKellar, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-017

Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January
7, 2003   

AFFIRMED

Eretha M. Green Daniels, of Columbia; for Appellant

Frank Anthony Barton, of W. Columbia; for
Respondent(s).

PER CURIAM:  Eretha M. Green-Daniels appeals
the circuit court order affirming the magistrate’s order granting an application
for ejectment.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 27-37-20 (1991) (providing a magistrate is vested
with jurisdiction to hear ejectment actions); Vacation Time of Hilton Head
Island, Inc. v. Kiwi Corp., 280 S.C. 232, 312 S.E.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1984)
(holding that although the circuit court and the magistrate have concurrent
jurisdiction in ejectment proceedings, the circuit court still has appellate
jurisdiction over ejectment cases initially heard by a magistrate); S.C. Code
Ann. § 14-5-340 (1977) (“Circuit judges may hear appeals from magistrates’ courts
and municipal courts to the court of general sessions and the court of common
pleas, upon notice as required by law being given for the hearing of such appeals.”);
S.C. Code Ann. § 27-35-40 (1991) (“When a person enters upon or uses the premises
of another without agreement or without the permission of the owner or by trespass
the owner may at his option waive such tort and treat and deem such person a
tenant at will.  In such case the landlord shall have and be entitled to a reasonable
rental for the use and occupation of such premises and all remedies for the
enforcement of his rights in respect thereto as in other cases of tenancy at
will.”); D & D Leasing Co. of S.C. v. Gentry, 298 S.C. 342, 380 S.E.2d
823 (1989) (finding appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record
for the appellate court to conduct a proper review); Germain v. Nichol,
278 S.C. 508, 299 S.E.2d 335 (1983) (holding the appealing party has the burden
of furnishing a sufficient record from which the appellate court can make an
intelligent review); Solomon v. City Realty Co., 262 S.C. 198, 203 S.E.2d
435 (1974) (stating conclusory arguments are deemed abandoned); Muir v. C.R.
Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 519 S.E.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1999) (finding issue
is deemed abandoned on appeal if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement
without supporting authority); Englert, Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co.,
315 S.C. 300, 304 n.2, 433 S.E.2d 871, 873 n.2 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding a “one-sentence
argument is too conclusory to present any issue on appeal”); Hendrix v. E.
Distrib., Inc., 320 S.C. 218, 464 S.E.2d 112 (1995) (holding an appellate
court may not address an issue that is not preserved); Vacation Time of Hilton
Head Island, Inc., 280 S.C. at 233, 312 S.E.2d at 21 (concluding that on
appeal from a magistrate’s decision for an application for ejectment, this Court
is without jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the circuit court if there
is any supporting evidence).

AFFIRMED.

CONNOR, STILWELL and HOWARD, JJ., concur.