Cobb v. Maccaro, No. 1876

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: GARDNER; GOOLSBY
• Citation: 423 S.E.2d 156,310 S.C. 303
• Parties: Frank COBB, d/b/a Cobb Plumbing Service, Respondent, v. George E. MACCARO, Ann S. Maccaro and Greenwood National Bank, of whom George E. Maccaro and Ann S. Maccaro are, Appellants. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 1876
• Decision Date: 09 September 1992

Page 156

423 S.E.2d 156 310 S.C. 303 Frank COBB, d/b/a Cobb Plumbing Service, Respondent,
v.
George E. MACCARO, Ann S. Maccaro and Greenwood National Bank,
of whom George E. Maccaro and Ann S. Maccaro are, Appellants. No. 1876. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard Sept. 9, 1992.
Decided Oct. 5, 1992.

[310 S.C. 304] John DeVore Compton, III, Greenwood, for appellants.

John Beasley, Greenwood, for respondent.

GARDNER, Judge:

Respondent, Frank Cobb (Cobb), filed a mechanic's lien against the property of the Appellants, George E. and Ann S. Maccaro (the Maccaros). The Maccaros petitioned to vacate the lien under S.C.Code Ann. § 29-5-100 (1976) on the ground that Cobb had "wilfully and knowingly claimed more than is his due." The trial judge denied the Maccaros' motion with leave to renew the issue during later proceedings. The Maccaros appeal from the order. We dismiss because this order is not appealable.

Page 157

DISCUSSION

The ability of this Court to hear appeals is limited by statute. See S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976 & Supp.1991). [310 S.C. 305] Only final judgments, including those arising from a special or collateral proceeding after judgment, and certain interlocutory orders are appealable. Only interlocutory orders which (1) involve the merits; (2) affect a substantial right; or (3) involve certain orders regarding injunctions and appointments of receivers, can be appealed. Id. The case at hand addresses the appealability of a denial to vacate a mechanic's lien.

The Maccaros' counsel first argues the order is appealable because it affects a substantial right. See S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2) (1976). The Maccaros contend that their right to avoid a burden on their title and to avoid defending foreclosure is impinged upon by the trial judge's denial of their motion to vacate the mechanic's lien.

To appeal an order affecting a substantial right, an order must not only involve a right, but it must also "prevent[ ] a judgment from which an appeal might be taken." Ex parte Johnson, 63 S.C. 205, 208, 41 S.E. 308, 309 (1902) (this case has been renamed in the West Reporter, See Rutledge v. Tunno ); See also S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1976). In the present case, the trial judge's order preserves the Maccaros' right to renew their claim for statutory dissolution of the lien during later proceedings. The Maccaros, therefore, will not be denied a later judgment from which they can appeal the same issue. Furthermore, the Maccaros...