Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-056 - Reed v. Reed

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

Ginger Reed, with whom Wayne Marshall Reed, III, is a Co-Plaintiff, Plaintiff,

v.

Wayne Marshall Reed, Defendant,

In Re: Wayne Marshall Reed, II, Respondent,

v.

Ginger Reed, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
Deborah Neese, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-056
Submitted January 3, 2012 – Filed February 1, 2012


APPEAL DISMISSED


Timothy G. Quinn, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Jean Perrin Derrick, of Lexington, and Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ginger Reed appeals the family court's denial of her Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, arguing the family court erred in denying her motion as disallowed under the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.  We dismiss the appeal as untimely[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR (requiring a notice of appeal to be served on all respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment but staying the time for appeal when a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment has been made); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 15, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004) (noting that this court has "endorsed the prevailing view espoused by federal courts that a second motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate only if it challenges something that was altered from the original judgment as a result of the initial motion for reconsideration"); id. at 20, 602 S.E.2d at 778 ("An appeal may be barred due to untimely service of the notice of appeal when a party—instead of serving a notice of appeal—files a successive Rule 59(e) motion, where the trial judge's ruling on the first Rule 59(e) motion does not result in a substantial alteration of the original judgment.");  Coward Hund Constr. Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 3-6, 518 S.E.2d 56, 58-59 (Ct. App. 1999) (dismissing an appeal as untimely because a successive Rule 59(e) motion did not stay the time for filing an appeal when the court's order denying the first Rule 59(e) motion did not alter its original judgment).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.