SC Court of Appeals makes new law on Rule 59 and timeliness of an appeal
By Bill Watkins, Esq.
In Camp v. Camp, the South Carolina Court of Appeals offered another chapter in the book of practice under Rule 59(e). The case concerned a family court order requiring father to pay mother a certain amount of child's college expenses. After the order was entered, father filed the following motion for reconsideration:
Please be advised that the defendant through his undersigned attorney will move before the Honorable David Sawyer to reconsider the ruling in his order dated July 26, 2006 and awarding [child] college expenses and costs. This motion hearing is set to be heard on the 18th day of October, 2006, at 3:45 o'clock p.m. Please be present to defend if so minded.
A hearing was held on the motion and the motion was denied. Father then appealed. The key issue on appeal was whether the motion to reconsider stayed the time of appeal. If the motion to reconsider did not stay the time for appeal, then father's appeal would have been due on August 26, 2006, several months before the motion was actually heard.
The Court of Appeals held that because the motion for reconsideration was insufficient under SCRCP 7(b)(1), it did not stay the time for appeal. The Court chided the father for not stating with particularity the grounds for relief in the motion. The Court emphasized that father neither identified an error of law by the family court not stated a single ground on which the family court might grant him relief.
Timeliness Counts When Filing Legal Appeal Time is definitely not on your side when filing a legal appeal. The filing deadlines for appeals are jurisdictional and set in stone. They cannot be extended by consent of the parties involved, nor can they be extended by the court...
Appeal Fron Non-Final Order Dismissed In Morrison v. Morrison, Ms. 2070136 (Ala. Civ. App. July 18, 2008), the Court of Civil Appeals dismissed an appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the order on appeal did not dispose of all claims in the case, and there was no Rule 54(b) certification...
COA Dismisses Appeal For Rule Violations Today the Court of Appeals (COA) dismissed an appeal because the appellant failed to comply with Appellate Rule 3 regarding the content of the notice on appeal, failed to include in her brief a statement of the standard of review, and "most significantly" failed to include in the record on appeal the certificate of service for the notice of appeal...