Matthews v. RICHLAND COUNTY SCH. DIST, No. 3756.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | HEARN, C.J. |
| Citation | 594 S.E.2d 177,357 S.C. 594 |
| Parties | Delores MATTHEWS, Respondent, v. RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 3756. |
| Decision Date | 08 March 2004 |
357 S.C. 594
594 S.E.2d 177
v.
RICHLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, Appellant
No. 3756.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted February 9, 2004.
Decided March 8, 2004.
HEARN, C.J.:
Richland County School District One appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Delores Matthews following a jury verdict on her claim under the Payment of Wages Act. We dismiss the appeal as being untimely.
FACTS
On August 31, 2002, Matthews commenced this action by filing a complaint alleging a cause of action under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.1 Matthews worked as a bookkeeper for School District when the events underlying the current litigation occurred.
Matthews averred she performed work for School District during the summer months of 1999, for which she received no compensation. Specifically, Matthews sought remuneration of standard pay for 157.5 hours, overtime pay for 217.5 hours, and travel expenses of $1,053. The total amount sought in the complaint amounted to approximately $8,000.
Following a jury trial on December 19, 2001, a verdict was returned for Matthews in the amount of $10,000 actual damages. After the jury was dismissed, School District made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") on the ground there was no evidence in the record to support the amount awarded. School District also made a motion for remittitur, specifically asking the court to reduce the amount awarded to an amount supported by the evidence.
The trial court denied both of School District's motions and upheld the verdict of $10,000. School District received a written copy of the entry of judgment on January 14, 2002, and moved pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, to alter or amend the judgment on January 25, 2002. This motion restated the argument made in School District's JNOV motion that there was no evidence to support the award of $10,000. Matthews submitted a response to School District's motion on January 31, 2002, in which she asked the court to let the verdict stand, or, in the alternative, order a new trial nisi and allow her to
At the hearing held on March 7, 2002, the trial court began by questioning his authority to reconsider his denial of the post-trial motion. Counsel for both parties assured the court it had jurisdiction, and the trial court ultimately granted School District's motion. In its order dated March 19, 2002, the trial court found the evidence supported a verdict in the amount of $7,100. However, the trial court also awarded Matthews attorney's fees in the amount of $4,900. Thus, the total awarded to Matthews following the hearing was $12,000, rather than the original $10,000 awarded by the jury. School District filed its notice of appeal on April 19, 2002.
School District's argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in making a mandatory award of attorney's fees in its March 19th order when School District disputed Matthews' claims for wages and expenses in good faith.
LAW/ANALYSIS
We conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain School District's identical, successive post-trial motion and, as a result, the appeal to this court is untimely, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction.2
Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR, provides that the notice of appeal from a civil action shall be served on respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment. Although timely motions for JNOV, to alter or amend the judgment, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elam v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP., No. 25869.
...579 S.E.2d 524 (Ct.App.2002). We conclude the Court of Appeals in the present case and in Matthews v. Richland County School Dist. One, 357 S.C. 594, 594 S.E.2d 177 (Ct.App.2004) has extended the holdings and rationale of those three cases in a manner which unnecessarily complicates post-tr......
-
Penny v. Green, No. 3754.
...annual income has nearly doubled since the parties' divorce in 1997, Husband has a much greater earning potential as a pediatrician. 357 S.C. 594 As such, Husband is clearly more able to pay both his own attorney's fees and those accrued by Wife. Along those lines, Husband's standard of liv......
-
Hollins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4473.
...was untimely. We believe a close question is presented in this evolving area of the law. See Matthews v. Richland County Sch. Dist. One, 357 S.C. 594, 594 S.E.2d 177 (Ct.App.2004), overruled by Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 602 S.E.2d 772 (2004). Accordingly, we reach the merit......
-
Elam v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP., No. 25869.
...579 S.E.2d 524 (Ct.App.2002). We conclude the Court of Appeals in the present case and in Matthews v. Richland County School Dist. One, 357 S.C. 594, 594 S.E.2d 177 (Ct.App.2004) has extended the holdings and rationale of those three cases in a manner which unnecessarily complicates post-tr......
-
Penny v. Green, No. 3754.
...annual income has nearly doubled since the parties' divorce in 1997, Husband has a much greater earning potential as a pediatrician. 357 S.C. 594 As such, Husband is clearly more able to pay both his own attorney's fees and those accrued by Wife. Along those lines, Husband's standard of liv......
-
Hollins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4473.
...was untimely. We believe a close question is presented in this evolving area of the law. See Matthews v. Richland County Sch. Dist. One, 357 S.C. 594, 594 S.E.2d 177 (Ct.App.2004), overruled by Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 602 S.E.2d 772 (2004). Accordingly, we reach the merit......