Full Opinion

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 Bruce Wilson, Appellant, v. Joseph Hunter Bledsoe, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2023-001585 Appeal From Greenville County Perry H. Gravely, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-457 Submitted September 1, 2026 – Filed October 21, 2026 AFFIRMED Bruce Wilson, of Greenville, pro se. Kenneth Jay Anthony, of Anthony Law, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Bruce Wilson appeals the circuit court's order affirming the magistrate's dismissal of his claim and delivery action on the basis that he failed to identify the specific property allegedly taken and its value. On appeal, Wilson argues the circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing his claim because section 22-3-1460 of the South Carolina Code (2025) does not require him to produce receipts or credit card statements to prove ownership or value of the property in question. We affirm. We hold that the Claim and Delivery Section does not require Wilson to provide sales receipts, credit card statements, or any other evidence of proof of purchase to establish ownership and value. However, Wilson's claim was properly dismissed because he failed to provide sworn testimony or any other evidence to identify the items taken, their value, or proof of ownership of those items. First Palmetto State Bank & Tr. Co. v. Boyles, 302 S.C. 136, 138, 394 S.E.2d 313, 314 (1990) ("An action in claim and delivery is an action at law for the recovery of specific personal property."); Clerks' Benevolent Union v. Knights of Columbus, 70 S.C. 543, 547, 50 S.E. 206, 207 (1905) (holding that in order for a plaintiff to recover, he "must allege that the property detained is his, or that it was taken from his possession, and he cannot recover without showing title in himself"); Manship v. Newsome, 188 S.C. 6, 10, 198 S.E. 428, 430 ("Proof of title, or right of possession, is a prerequisite to a plaintiff prevailing in an action in [c]laim and [d]elivery."); see also S.C. Code Ann. section 22-3-1320 (2006) ("[T]he plaintiff . . . shall make proof by affidavit, showing: (1) [t]hat the plaintiff is the owner or is entitled to immediate possession of the property claimed, particularly describing such property . . . and (5) [t]he actual value of such personal property."); see Bossard v. Vaughn, 68 S.C. 96, 46 S.E. 523 (1904) (holding sections 22-3-1320 and 22-3-1460 of the S.C. Code (2006) can be satisfied by referring back to the pleadings in a claim and delivery action). There is no evidence in the record of ownership or value of the property other than Wilson's unnotarized affidavit and complaint. The circuit court found Wilson failed to testify to the actual value of the items in question or otherwise provide "any evidence" to support his claim despite being given "numerous opportunities" at trial and on remand to do so. The factual finding that Wilson did not establish ownership of any items taken or their values is supported by the evidence, and there are no facts that show the affirmance was influenced by an error of law. See Union Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Henderson, 395 S.C. 516, 519, 719 S.E.2d 665, 666 (2011) (explaining a "magistrate's factual findings, confirmed by the circuit court, must be upheld by the appellate court if supported by any evidence"); Hadfield v. Gilchrist, 343 S.C. 88, 93, 538 S.E.2d 268, 271 (Ct. App. 2000) ("[T]he [appellate court] will presume that an affirmance by a [c]ircuit [c]ourt of a magistrate's judgment was made upon the merits where the testimony is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the magistrate and there are no facts that show the affirmance was influenced by an error of law." (quoting Burns v. Wannamaker, 281 S.C. 352, 357, 315 S.E.2d 179, 182 (Ct. App. 1984))). AFFIRMED.1 WILLIAMS, C.J., and MCDONALD and TURNER, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.