Woodson v. DLI Properties

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

Larius G.
Woodson and Maurissa Woodson, Appellants,

v.

DLI Properties,
LLC, Allen Tate Co, Inc., Melia C. Faile, and Alan L. Cauthen,

of whom Allen
Tate Co. and Melia C. Faile are the Respondents.

Appeal From Lancaster County

Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-291

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 14,
2011   

AFFIRMED

John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for
Appellants.

Thomas L. Ogburn, III, of Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Larius
G. Woodson and Maurissa Woodson (the Woodsons) appeal a circuit court's grant
of summary judgment to Allen Tate Co., Inc. (ATC) and Melia C. Faile on claims
of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices.  They raise
a number of issues addressing whether summary judgment was appropriate.  We
affirm for failure to provide a sufficient record.[1]

"Summary judgment is
proper when it is clear there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."  Bowen v. Lee Process Sys. Co., 342 S.C. 232, 235, 536 S.E.2d 86, 87 (Ct.
App. 2000).  In Bowen v. Lee Process Systems Co., this court vacated a
trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial
court for more specific findings and analysis because the trial court's "fail[ure]
to articulate the reasons for its action on the record or enter a written order
outlining its rationale . . ." prevented this court from
sufficiently reviewing whether summary judgment was appropriate.  Id. at
235-36, 241, 536 S.E.2d at 88, 91. 

Here, we cannot determine
whether summary judgment was appropriate because the trial court's order fails
to articulate its reasons for granting summary judgment.  However, we do not
vacate and remand this case because the trial court might have articulated its
decision during the summary judgment hearing and the Woodsons failed to provide
a hearing transcript.  Because the Woodsons failed to satisfy their burden of
providing a sufficient record, therefore, we affirm the appeal.  See 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)). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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