THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Chase Home Finance, LLC, Successor by merger to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation and Terry Wolfe, Purchaser, Respondents,
Percy L. Fordham, Jr. a/k/a Percy Vonfordham a/k/a Percy L. Forham, Jr., Kathy Lynn Fordham a/k/a L. Fordham a/k/a Kathy Lynn Bruce, Wachovia Bank, National Association, and United States of America acting by and through its agency, The Department of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Service, Defendants,
of whom Wachovia Bank, National Association is the Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
Joseph M. Strickland, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-289
Submitted May 1, 2008 – Filed June 4, 2008
Robert C. Byrd, of Charleston; and Susan Batten Lipscomb, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Elizabeth Rice Polk, J. Kershaw Spong, and James Derrick Jackson, all of Columbia; and James Edward Bradley, of West Columbia; for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: In this foreclosure action, Wachovia Bank appeals the order of the master-in-equity denying its motions to set aside the judicial sale of the subject property. 
We affirm the order of the master pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 14-15, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004) (noting that the requirement of service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, i.e., if a party misses the deadline, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and has no authority or discretion to rescue the delinquent party by extending or ignoring the deadline for service of the notice); Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR; Rules 50(e), 52(c), and 59(f), SCRCP (a timely post-trial motion, including a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCACR, stays the time for an appeal for all parties until the receipt of written notice of entry of the order granting or denying such motion); Elam, 361 at 20; 602 S.E.2d at 778 (finding that filing successive, virtually identical post-trial motions which raise issues already raised and ruled upon in a previous written order does not repeatedly toll the filing period for a notice of appeal).
THOMAS, J., PIEPER, J., and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.