Vespazianni v. McAlister
| Decision Date | 11 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 1780,1780 |
| Citation | 415 S.E.2d 427,307 S.C. 411 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John VESPAZIANNI and Donna M. Vespazianni, Appellants, v. Stan McALISTER, d/b/a McAlister Company, Respondent. . Heard |
Hal J. Warlick, Easley, for appellants.
Fletcher C. Mann, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Appellants John Vespazianni and Donna M. Vespazianni sued respondent Stan McAlister, d/b/a McAlister Company, a real estate agent, alleging he had failed to advise them of certain restrictive covenants on land they subsequently purchased. The Circuit Court granted Mr. McAlister's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Mr. and Mrs. Vespazianni appeal. We affirm.
The order of the Circuit Court, included in the Transcript of Record, is the form order filed with the Clerk of Court. It does not state the reason the Court granted the motion. Nor does the record contain the proceedings in the Circuit Court. Under the circumstances, "we must assume the regularity of the proceedings below and the correctness of the ruling appealed from." Broom v. Southeastern Highway Contracting Co., Inc., 291 S.C. 93, 97, 352 S.E.2d 302, 304 (Ct.App.1986). The appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record for review. Broom, 291 S.C. 93, 352 S.E.2d 302. There is a presumption in favor of correctness of an order, and the appellant must overcome that presumption. Dicks & Gillam, Inc. v. Cleland, 295 S.C. 124, 367 S.E.2d 430 (Ct.App.1988). For these reasons, we are required to affirm the order of the Circuit Court.
Pursuant to two of their three exceptions, Mr. and Mrs. Vespazianni argue that the Circuit Court erred in failing to rule on certain matters. Quite obviously, we cannot address these arguments for the reasons previously stated. Even if we were presented with a proper record, we would be prevented from addressing the arguments for another reason. Where a matter is not ruled on by the Circuit Court, the issue is not preserved for appellate review unless the complaining party moves to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP. Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56, 403 S.E.2d 122 (1991); Taylor v. Hoppin' Johns, Inc., 304 S.C. 471, 405 S.E.2d 410 (Ct.App.1991). It does not appear that Mr. and Mrs. Vespazianni made any such motion. We take this opportunity to remind the Bar that both this Court and our Supreme Court have repeatedly and explicitly held that such a motion is required in these circumstances.
Were we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cobb v. Benjamin, 2626
...Cobb, as the appellant in this issue, had the burden of presenting the court with an adequate record. Vespazianni v. McAlister, 307 S.C. 411, 415 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1992). However, the Nationwide policy is not part of the record on appeal and therefore this court may not consider it. See Ru......
-
Goode v. St. Stephens United Methodist Church
...278 S.C. 508, 299 S.E.2d 335 (1983) (appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record for review); Vespazianni v. McAlister, 307 S.C. 411, 415 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1992) (appellant has the burden of presenting a sufficient record for review). Because Goode did not provide adequate m......
-
Durkin v. Hansen
...a form order was handed down and Durkin failed to move to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), SCRCP. Citing Vespazianni v. McAlister, 307 S.C. 411, 415 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1992), Respondents argue Durkin has failed to present a sufficient record for appellate review. We disagree. The record......
-
General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Safeco Ins. Companies
...merit to Travelers' argument, it has failed to bear its appellate burden of demonstrating reversible error. Vespazianni v. McAlister, 307 S.C. 411, 415 S.E.2d 427 (Ct.App.1992). Finally, Travelers argues that even if it has coverage, its excess coverage clause should prevail so as to preclu......