Karen Gibson Rivers v. Jasmine Frederick ( 2023 )

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
Re: Estate of James Rivers
Karen Gibson Rivers, Appellant,
v.
Jasmine Frederick, Jewel Hayden, James Rivers, Jr.,
Jahmesha Rivers, and Angel Rivers, a minor child,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2021-000772
Appeal From Orangeburg County
James B. Jackson, Jr., Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-105
Submitted January 1, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023
AFFIRMED
Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., of Goodwyn Law Firm,
LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Jasmine Frederick, Jewel Hayden, James Rivers, Jr.,
Jahmesha Rivers, and Angel Rivers, a minor child, all
pro se.
PER CURIAM: Karen Rivers appeals a master-in equity's order affirming the
probate court's denial of her petition for common-law marriage. On appeal, Rivers
argues the master erred by finding she failed to present clear and convincing
evidence that she was the common-law wife of the decedent, James Rivers.
Because there is evidence in the record to support the probate court's finding that
Rivers failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a common-law marriage,
we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re
Est. of Duffy, 392 S.C. 41, 46, 707 S.E.2d 447, 450 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The party
seeking to establish the existence of a common[-]law marriage carries the burden
of proof."); S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-802(b)(4) (2022) (providing that for petitions
for common-law marriage in which one party is deceased, a common-law marriage
must be established by clear and convincing evidence); Tarnowski v. Lieberman,
348 S.C. 616, 619, 560 S.E.2d 438, 440 (Ct. App. 2002) ("[An appellate court's]
review [of the probate court's decision on a petition for common-law marriage] is
limited to a determination of whether . . . there is any evidence to support the
findings of the [probate court].").
AFFIRMED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.