Otten v. Otten

Decision Date08 October 1985
Citation337 S.E.2d 207,287 S.C. 166
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesKaren C. OTTEN, Respondent, v. Martin B. OTTEN, Appellant.
ORDER

Respondent brought this action for separate maintenance and support and for an equitable division of marital property. After a hearing, the family court judge signed an order proposed by respondent's counsel. Appellant moved pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(a), SCRCP, to modify the order. Because of appellant's uncertainty as to the effect the motions would have on the time for appeal, he served and filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant now moves this Court to remand the matter for consideration of his motions. The motion to remand is granted and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

We take this opportunity to comment on the effect Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(a) motions have on the time for the filing of appeals.

Rule 59(e), provides that a "motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." Under Rule 59(f), when such a motion is made, the time for appeal from the judgment begins to run from the time of the order granting or denying the motion.

Rule 60(a), allows the correction of clerical mistakes in judgments. A motion made under this provision does not toll the running of the time for appeal.

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Williams v. Condon
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 1 Octubre 2001
    ...Rule 60, SCRCP do not affect the finality of the judgment under attack and thus do not toll the time for appeal. See Otten v. Otten, 287 S.C. 166, 337 S.E.2d 207 (1985); Coward Hund Constr. Co., Inc. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 518 S.E.2d 56 (Ct.App.1999); see also, James F. Flanagan, South ......
  • Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 19 Septiembre 2022
  • Canal Ins. Co. v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 22 Noviembre 1999
    ...("The time for appeal for all parties shall be stayed by a timely motion under this Rule....") (emphasis added); Otten v. Otten, 287 S.C. 166, 167, 337 S.E.2d 207, 208 (1985) (stating that when a motion to alter or amend is made under Rule 59, "the time for appeal from the judgment begins t......
  • Coward Hund Const. Co. v. Ball Corp., 2989.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 10 Mayo 1999
    ...runs from the receipt of written notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion. Rule 59(f), SCRCP. See Otten v. Otten, 287 S.C. 166, 167, 337 S.E.2d 207, 208 (1985) (stating that when a party makes a motion for reconsideration, "the time for appeal from the judgment begins to run fro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Time Is Not on Your Side
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar South Carolina Lawyer No. 28-5, March 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...Rule 59(f), S.C.R.Civ.P. (“The time for appeal for all parties shall be stayed by a timely motion under this Rule ...”); Otten v. Otten, 287 S.C. 166, 167, 337 S.E.2d 207, 208 (1985) (when a motion to alter or amend is made under Rule 59, “the time for appeal from the judgment begins to run......

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