Mears v. Mears
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 337 S.E.2d 206,287 S.C. 168 |
| Decision Date | 29 August 1985 |
| Parties | Patricia Flatley MEARS, Respondent, v. George Stephen MEARS, Appellant. |
Page 206
v.
George Stephen MEARS, Appellant.
Page 207
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We note that Act No. 100 of 1985 has repealed S.C.Code Ann.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
-
Coastal Conservation v. Dept. of Health, No. 4450.
...[an appeals 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. 4......
-
Fields v. REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR. ORANGEBURG, No. 25939.
...the 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 5......
-
Elam v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP., No. 25869.
...authority 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 t......
-
Hooper v. Rockwell, No. 24907.
...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......
-
Coastal Conservation v. Dept. of Health, No. 4450.
...[an appeals 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. 4......
-
Fields v. REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR. ORANGEBURG, No. 25939.
...the 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 5......
-
Elam v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP., No. 25869.
...authority 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 t......
-
Hooper v. Rockwell, No. 24907.
...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......