Redmond v. E-Z Out Bail Bonds

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 Thomas E. Redmond and Arrow Bail Bonding, Inc., Respondents, v. E-Z Out Bail Bonds, Inc., Appellant. Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-145 Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March 7, 2012 AFFIRMED Andrew F. Litvin, of Columbia, for Appellant. J. Thomas McBratney, III, of Florence, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: E-Z Out Bail Bonds, Inc. (E-Z Out) appeals the jury's damages award of $220,397.24 to Thomas E. Redmond and Arrow Bail Bonding, Inc. (collectively Arrow Bail Bonding). On appeal, E-Z Out argues the trial court erred in denying its motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and a new trial. Because E-Z Out did not provide this court with an adequate record to consider these arguments, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 210(h), SCACR ("[T]he appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); McCall v. IKON, 380 S.C. 649, 663, 670 S.E.2d 695, 703 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding the appellant "bears the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to allow appellate review"); In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2001) ("[O]nly grounds raised in the directed verdict motion may properly be reasserted in the [JNOV] motion. . . ."); Marsh v S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 298 S.C. 420, 423, 380 S.E.2d 867, 869 (Ct. App. 1989) (holding an alternative motion for new trial that mirrors a JNOV motion is limited to the grounds stated in the motion for directed verdict); Peay v Ross, 292 S.C. 535, 537, 357 S.E.2d 482, 483-84 (Ct. App. 1987) ("[A] motion for a directed verdict is a prerequisite to a motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence does not support the verdict."). AFFIRMED. PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.