Green-Daniels v. Briggs

PER CURIAM: Eretha M THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Eretha M. Green-Daniels, Appellant, v. Floyd Briggs, Respondent. Appeal From Richland County L. Henry McKellar, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-017 Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January 7, 2003 AFFIRMED Eretha M. Green Daniels, of Columbia; for Appellant Frank Anthony Barton, of W. Columbia; for Respondent(s). PER CURIAM: Eretha M. Green-Daniels appeals the circuit court order affirming the magistrate’s order granting an application for ejectment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 27-37-20 (1991) (providing a magistrate is vested with jurisdiction to hear ejectment actions); Vacation Time of Hilton Head Island, Inc. v. Kiwi Corp., 280 S.C. 232, 312 S.E.2d 20 (Ct. App. 1984) (holding that although the circuit court and the magistrate have concurrent jurisdiction in ejectment proceedings, the circuit court still has appellate jurisdiction over ejectment cases initially heard by a magistrate); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-5-340 (1977) (“Circuit judges may hear appeals from magistrates’ courts and municipal courts to the court of general sessions and the court of common pleas, upon notice as required by law being given for the hearing of such appeals.”); S.C. Code Ann. § 27-35-40 (1991) (“When a person enters upon or uses the premises of another without agreement or without the permission of the owner or by trespass the owner may at his option waive such tort and treat and deem such person a tenant at will. In such case the landlord shall have and be entitled to a reasonable rental for the use and occupation of such premises and all remedies for the enforcement of his rights in respect thereto as in other cases of tenancy at will.”); D & D Leasing Co. of S.C. v. Gentry, 298 S.C. 342, 380 S.E.2d 823 (1989) (finding appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record for the appellate court to conduct a proper review); Germain v. Nichol, 278 S.C. 508, 299 S.E.2d 335 (1983) (holding the appealing party has the burden of furnishing a sufficient record from which the appellate court can make an intelligent review); Solomon v. City Realty Co., 262 S.C. 198, 203 S.E.2d 435 (1974) (stating conclusory arguments are deemed abandoned); Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 519 S.E.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1999) (finding issue is deemed abandoned on appeal if it is argued in a short, conclusory statement without supporting authority); Englert, Inc. v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 315 S.C. 300, 304 n.2, 433 S.E.2d 871, 873 n.2 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding a “one-sentence argument is too conclusory to present any issue on appeal”); Hendrix v. E. Distrib., Inc., 320 S.C. 218, 464 S.E.2d 112 (1995) (holding an appellate court may not address an issue that is not preserved); Vacation Time of Hilton Head Island, Inc., 280 S.C. at 233, 312 S.E.2d at 21 (concluding that on appeal from a magistrate’s decision for an application for ejectment, this Court is without jurisdiction to reverse the findings of the circuit court if there is any supporting evidence). AFFIRMED. CONNOR, STILWELL and HOWARD, JJ., concur.