Potts v. McCarty Enterprises, LLC
Decision Date | 06 February 2019 |
Docket Number | 2019-UP-061 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Amy Potts, Respondent, v. McCarty Enterprises, LLC; John Miles McCarty; Audrey S. McCarty, a/k/a Audrey J. McCarty; and Jane Doe; Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2017-000198 |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted January 1, 2019
Appeal From Saluda County Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Candy M. Kern-Fuller, of Upstate Law Group, LLC, of Easley, for Appellants.
Michael Evan Lacke, of Lacke Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston and Frank S. Potts, of Leesville, both for Respondent.
McCarty Enterprises, LLC; John McCarty; Audrey McCarty; and Jane Doe (collectively, McCarty) appeal the circuit court's order granting Amy Potts's motions for entry of default and to strike McCarty's answer and amended motion to dismiss.[1] On appeal, McCarty argues the circuit court erred by (1) denying McCarty's amended motion to dismiss, (2) granting Potts's motion to strike McCarty's answer and amended motion to dismiss, and (3) granting Potts's motion for entry of default. We dismiss pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to McCarty's argument the circuit court erred by denying its motion to dismiss: McLendon v. S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 313 S.C. 525, 526, 443 S.E.2d 539, 540 (1994) (); id. at 526 n.2, 443 S.E.2d at 540 n.2 ( ).
2. As to McCarty's argument the circuit court erred by granting Potts's motion to strike McCarty's answer: § 14-3-330(2)(c) (); QZO, Inc. v. Moyer, 358 S.C. 246, 256, 594 S.E.2d 541, 547 (Ct. App. 2004) (); Thornton v. S.C. Elec. & Gas Corp., 391 S.C 297, 302, 705 S.E.2d 475, 478 (Ct. App. 2011) (); id. at 303, 705 S.E.2d at 478 ("We believe a narrow construction of section 14-3-330(2)(c) requires us to focus on the effect of the order, not the label given to the motion or to the order granting it."); id. at 304, 405 S.E.2d at 479 ("[A]n appellate court should look to the effect of an interlocutory order to determine its appealability under section 14-3-330(2)(c)."); id. (); id. ("Whether an order granting a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is appealable under section 14-3-330(2)(c) depends on the effect of the individual order under the facts and circumstances of the case."); Jefferson ex rel Johnson v. Gene's Used Cars, Inc., 295 S.C. 317, 368 S.E.2d 456 (1988) ( ); Baldwin Constr. Co. v. Graham, 357 S.C. 227, 593 S.E.2d 146 (2004) ( ).
3. As to McCarty's argument the circuit court erred by granting Potts's motion for entry of default: Rule 201(a), SCACR ("Appeal may be taken . . . from any final judgment appealable order or decision."); Hagood v. Sommerville, 362 S.C. 191, 194, 607 S.E.2d 707, 708 (2005) (); Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 12, 625 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2005) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial