Mullins v. Solley

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 7, 2012
• Docket: 2012-UP-162
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-162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.