Visser v. Pinckney

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

Christine
Visser, Appellant,

v.

Michael Pinckney, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Donald A. Fanning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-141

Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed April 5,
2011 

AFFIRMED

Keven Kurtis Kenison, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Rhett D. Burney, of Laurens, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Christine Visser appeals a circuit court order
dismissing her appeal from a magistrate's decision for failure to file a notice
of appeal sufficient to give notice of her grounds for appeal to Michael
Pinckney.  Visser argues the circuit court erred in dismissing her appeal
because (1) her original notice of appeal provided adequate notice; (2) if the
original notice was insufficient, the circumstances surrounding her appeal
provided adequate notice when combined with the original notice; and (3) her
supplemental notice of appeal provided adequate notice.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the original
notice in and of itself provided adequate notice: State
v. Sullivan, 310 S.C. 311, 314-15, 426
S.E.2d 766, 768-69 (1993) (holding similar exceptions listed in an original
notice of appeal failed by themselves to apprise the other parties and courts
of the grounds for appeal).

2. As to whether the
circumstances surrounding the appeal and the original notice provided adequate
notice: Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any
fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Price v. Pickens
Cnty., 308 S.C. 64, 67, 416 S.E.2d 666, 668 (Ct.
App. 1992) ("The burden is on the
appellant to provide a sufficient record such that this court can make an
intelligent review.") (citation omitted). 

3.As to whether the
supplemental notice provided adequate notice: United Dominion Realty Trust,
Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 307 S.C. 102, 107,
413 S.E.2d 866, 869 (Ct. App. 1992) (holding
an issue was not preserved because the circuit court did not rule on the issue
and the appellant failed to raise the issue in a motion to alter or amend)
(citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER,
JJ., concur.

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