Mears v. Mears

Decision Date29 August 1985
Citation337 S.E.2d 206,287 S.C. 168
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesPatricia Flatley MEARS, Respondent, v. George Stephen MEARS, Appellant.
ORDER

Appellant petitions this Court to relax Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A and § 1 C. Respondent has filed a return in which she opposes the petition.

Appellant's counsel received written notice that the order had been rendered on April 29, 1985. Appellant did not serve the notice of intent to appeal on opposing counsel until June 14, 1985.

Under Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A, the notice of intent to appeal should have been served on the opposing party or his attorney within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice that the order had been rendered. Therefore, appellant's service of the notice of intent to appeal was untimely by some thirty-six (36) days.

Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served. Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949); Wade v. Gore, 154 S.C. 262, 151 S.E. 470 (1930); Renneker v. Warren, 20 S.C. 581 (1884). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. First Carolina National Bank v. A & S Enterprises, Inc., 272 S.C. 339, 251 S.E.2d 762 (1979).

We note that Act No. 100 of 1985 has repealed S.C.Code Ann. § 18-9-60 (1976) upon which Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A, is based. Despite this repeal, the timely service of the notice of intent to appeal will remain a jurisdictional requirement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 cases
  • Coastal Conservation v. Dept. of Health
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2008
    ...court] has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served." Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 169, 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) (citing Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949); Wade v. Gore, 154 S.C. 262, 151 S.E. 470 (1930); R......
  • Fields v. REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR. ORANGEBURG
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 14, 2005
    ...time to appeal, making Plaintiff's notice of appeal untimely and depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction. See Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985); Rule 203(b)(1), We conclude Plaintiff's written motion is properly viewed as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)......
  • Elam v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2004
    ...or discretion to "rescue" the delinquent party by extending or ignoring the deadline for service of the notice. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985). A timely post-trial motion, including a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, stays the time fo......
  • Hooper v. Rockwell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1999
    ...v. Clemens, 322 S.C. 20, 471 S.E.2d 163 (1996) (stating the general rule that only final judgments are appealable); Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985) (timely service of notice of appeal is jurisdictional requirement and this Court may not extend the time for doing it); Rul......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT