Rachel Farley v. Church of the Harvest of Columbia, Inc.

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

Rachel Farley, as Trustee of the Louise Farley Revocable
Trust Dated February 8, 2005; Drummond B. Farley;
Rachel R. Farley; Carol E. Farley; and Nancy E. Farley,
Appellants,

v.

Church of the Harvest of Columbia, Inc., Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001609

Appeal From Lexington County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-193
Submitted March 1, 2022 – Filed May 11, 2022

APPEAL DISMISSED

S. Jahue Moore and William H. Edwards, both of Moore
Bradley Myers, PA, of West Columbia, for Appellants.

Robert W. Dibble, Jr., of Harrell, Martin, & Peace, P.A.,
of Chapin, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellants, the beneficiaries and Trustee of the Louise Farley
Revocable Trust Dated February 8, 2005 (the Trust), appeal the circuit court's
order granting summary judgment to Church of the Harvest of Columbia, Inc. (the
Church) and dismissing their action seeking removal of the Church's obstructions
to an easement owned by the Trust.

The trial court issued its original order granting summary judgment for the Church
on May 9, 2019, and the Trust filed a timely Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion asking
the trial court to reconsider its ruling. The trial court denied the Trust's motion on
June 19, 2019, but issued an amended order correcting three scrivener's errors on
July 23, 2019. The Trust then filed a successive motion for reconsideration of the
amended order rather than a notice of appeal. Because the Trust did not timely
serve and file its notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the
appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities: Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR (stating that in an appeal from
the Court of Common Pleas, the notice of appeal must be served within thirty days
after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment); Coward Hund
Const. Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 3, 518 S.E.2d 56, 57 (Ct. App. 1999) ("If a
timely motion is made pursuant to Rule 59, the time for appeal runs from the
receipt of written notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion."); Rule
203(b)(1), SCACR (stating, however, that "[w]hen a form . . . order or judgment
indicates that a more full and complete order or judgment is to follow, a party need
not appeal until receipt" of such order or judgment); Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.,
361 S.C. 9, 14-15, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004) ("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."); Robinson v. Robinson, 365 S.C. 583, 585, 619 S.E.2d 425, 426
(2005) ("The filing of successive post-trial motions raising issues already raised to
and ruled upon by the trial court does not toll the time to serve a notice of appeal."
(citing Quality Trailer Products, Inc. v. CSL Equip. Co., Inc., 349 S.C. 216, 219,
562 S.E.2d 615, 617 (2002))); Coward Hund Const. Co., 336 S.C. at 3, 518 S.E.2d
at 58 ("[A] second motion for reconsideration is appropriate only if it challenges
something that was altered from the original judgment as a result of the initial
motion for reconsideration." (emphasis added)); Elam, 361 S.C. 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 [court's] ruling on the first Rule 59(e) motion does not
result in a substantial alteration of the original judgment.").
APPEAL DISMISSED.1

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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