Mullins v. Solley

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

Jimmy L.
Mullins, Sr., and Mullins Trucking Company, Inc., Plaintiffs,

Of
whom Jimmy L. Mullins, Sr., is the Respondent,

v.

Barbara Solley, Appellant.

Appeal From Jasper County

Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-162

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March
7, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Jared Sullivan Newman, of Port Royal, for
Appellant.

Darrell Thomas Johnson, Jr., and Mills L.
Morrison, Jr., both of Hardeeville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Barbara
Solley appeals the circuit court's order partitioning property she owns with
Jimmy L. Mullins, Sr., arguing the circuit court erred in (1) finding her claim
of a gift in equity in the property from her sister was barred by the statute
of frauds, (2) failing to find the unclean hands doctrine barred Mullins's
partition action, (3) failing to find Mullins breached the parties'
pre-purchase contract by mortgaging the property, (4) failing to find Mullins
materially frustrated the purpose of the pre-purchase contract by mortgaging
the property, and (5) failing to find the parties should not be bound by the
pre-purchase contract because the parties' conduct evinced a course of
performance contrary to the terms of the contract.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in finding Solley's claim that her sister gifted her equity in the
property was barred by the statute of frauds:  Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he
appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record
on Appeal."); Smith v. Smith, 386 S.C. 251, 266, 687 S.E.2d 720,
728 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the appellant has the burden of presenting a
sufficient record to allow review).

2.  As to Solley's
remaining issues:  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733
(1998) (stating an issue "must have been raised to and ruled upon by the
[circuit court] to be preserved for appellate review"); Smith, 386
S.C. at 266, 687 S.E.2d at 728 (stating the appellant has the burden of
presenting a sufficient record to allow review).   

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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