Arthurs v. Brown ( 2004 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

---

Janet Elgin Arthurs, Personal Representative of the Estate of Betty B. Stephens, Deceased, Petitioner,

v.

Sue H. Brown, Respondent.

---

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

---

Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2004-MO-069
Submitted November 19, 2004 – Filed December 6, 2004

---

REVERSED AND REMANDED

---

Richard Edwin Miley, of North Augusta, for Petitioner.

Phillip E. Reeves, Esquire, and Jennifer D. Eubanks, both of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:          Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal as untimely. Additionally, petitioner has submitted a motion to remand, asking this Court to remand the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of our recent decision in Elam v. S.C. Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 602 S.E.2d 772 (2004).

Following a jury verdict in favor of respondent, petitioner orally moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.  After the denial of these motions, petitioner unsuccessfully moved to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP.  Without reaching the merits, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal as untimely. [1]

In light of Elam, supra, we find petitioner’s notice of appeal was timely.  Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with further briefing, reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the issues on appeal.  Petitioner’s motion to remand is denied as moot.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

---

[1] Arthurs v. Brown, Op. No. 2004-UP-216 (S.C. Ct. App. filed March 30, 2004).