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
James Chaplin and Lewiston Chaplin, Appellants,
v.
Mary Mae Robinson, Harriet Mae Brown, Rochelle Robinson, Florence Davis, Christine Black, Jaqueline Moultrie, Lucinda Robinson, JoAnn Robinson, Henry Robinson, Sr., Archie Robinson, Arthur Robinson, Sr., and John Doe and Mary Roe, infants, insane persons, and incompetents being fictitious names designating as a class of unknown person or persons, who may be an heir, distribute, devisee, legatee, widow, widower, assign, executor, administrator, creditor, successor, issue, or alienee of Henry Robinson, Jr., Eddie Green, Maggie Mitchell, Adeline Green deceased, and any other person, known or unknown, having any claim, right, title, estate in, or lien upon the parcel of real property described in the Complaint herein, Defendants,
of whom Arthur Robinson and Lucinda Robinson are the Respondents.
Appeal From Beaufort County
Marvin H. Dukes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-243�
Submitted May 1, 2011 � Filed May 24, 2011
AFFIRMED
Edward M. Brown, of Charleston, for Appellants.
J. Thomas Mikell, of Beaufort, and William F. Marscher, III, of Bluffton, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM:� James and Lewiston Chaplin� appeal the trial court's order dismissing their claims of ownership of a .71 acre parcel on St. Helena Island against the claims of Arthur Robinson, Sr. and Lucinda Robinson, arguing the trial court erred in finding the Chaplins did not adversely possess the contested parcel.� We affirm.[1]�
The party asserting adverse possession bears the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence he has satisfied the elements of adverse possession. �Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 10-11, 681 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted).� "Because an adverse possession claim is an action at law, the character of the possession is a question for the jury or fact finder.� Therefore, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether any evidence reasonably tends to support the trier of fact's findings."� Id. at 10, 681 S.E.2d at 11 (citation omitted).� Here, the trial court's decision is supported by evidence reasonably supporting the trial court's findings, namely the testimony of two land surveyors and the Robinsons' witnesses who were deemed more credible than the Chaplins' witnesses.
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.