Bliey v. Linda Robinson And Herrington's, LLC
Decision Date | 19 June 2019 |
Docket Number | 2019-UP-218 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ernest Bliey, Appellant, v. Linda Robinson and Herrington's, LLC, Defendants, Of which Herrington's, LLC, is the Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2016-001275 |
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.
Heard June 6, 2019
Appeal From Georgetown County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge
William M. Saltzman, of Merritt, Webb, Wilson & Caruso PLLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Walker H. Willcox, of Willcox Buyck & Williams, PA, of Florence for Respondent.
Ernest Bliey appeals the circuit court's order denying his Rule 60(a), SCRCP, motion to correct a clerical mistake, arguing the circuit court erred in finding Bliey's naming of "Herrington's, LLC" as a defendant did not constitute a clerical error and that allowing Bliey to substitute other defendants would improperly alter the scope of the underlying judgment. Bliey also argues the circuit court erred in finding he failed to present sufficient evidence to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b), SCRCP. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. The circuit court did not err in denying Bliey's Rule 60(a) motion because Bliey failed to provide any evidence that Herrington's performed work under any of the names Bliey sought to substitute as defendants, and the amendment would not have been a mere correction of an identified defendant's name. See Rule 60(a), SCRCP ("Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders."); Tri-Cty. Ice & Fuel Co. v. Palmetto Ice Co., 303 S.C. 237, 241 399 S.E.2d 779, 782 (1990) (); Dion v. Ravenel Eiserhardt Assocs., 316 S.C. 226, 230, 449 S.E.2d 251, 253-54 (Ct. App. 1994) ( ; Ex parte S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 350 S.C. 404, 408 n.1, 566 S.E.2d 196, 198 n.1 (Ct. App. 2002) (); Tri-Cty. Ice & Fuel, 303 S.C. at 241, 399 S.E.2d at 782 ( ); McClurg v. Deaton, 395 S.C. 85, 86 n.1, 716 S.E.2d 887, 887 n.1 (2011) ( ). Further, even if it were relevant, we cannot consider the evidence Bliey sought to submit with his Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion. See Stevens & Wilkinson of S.C., Inc. v. City of Columbia, 409 S.C. 563, 567, 762 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2014) (); Spreeuw v. Barker, 385 S.C. 45, 68- 69, 682 S.E.2d 843, 855 (Ct. App. 2009) ( ).
2. The circuit court did not err in denying Bliey's Rule 60(b) SCRCP, motion because Bliey did not provide any evidence of a justified mistake. See Rule 60(b), SCRCP (); BB & T v. Taylor, 369 S.C. 548, 552, 633 S.E.2d 501, 503 (2006) (); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial