Tonji Meredith v. Tammy Glenn

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 2021-001076
• Status: Unpublished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

Tonji Lavonne Meredith, Appellant,

v.

Tammy Lee Glenn and Scottie S. Glenn, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001076

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-137 Submitted April 16, 2025 – Filed April 23, 2025

AFFIRMED

Tonji Lavonne Meredith, of Greer, pro se.

Gary L. Compton, of Spartanburg, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Tonji Lavonne Meredith appeals the circuit court's order denying her motion to reconsider a circuit court order dismissing her appeal for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of section 62-1-308 of the South Carolina Code (2022). On appeal, she argues the circuit court erred when (1) the probate court ordered a deed search that was never executed, (2) the probate court refused to accept a subsequent will from her, and (3) the probate court and circuit court made decisions without seeing a letter affirming the validity of the credentials of the notary who notarized the will. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold Appellant's arguments are not properly before this court on appeal because she did not include or discuss authority to support the arguments raised in her brief. See Equivest Fin., LLC v. Ravenel, 422 S.C. 499, 506, 812 S.E.2d 438, 441 (Ct. App. 2018) ("When a party provides no legal authority regarding a particular argument, the argument is abandoned and the court will not address the merits of the issue."); Rule 208(b)(1)(E), SCACR (stating the "particular issue to be addressed" in appellant's brief shall be "followed by discussion and citations of authority"). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order.

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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