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Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-056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.