Lake Marion Regional Water Agency v. Goodwin ( 2013 )

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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Lake Marion Regional Water Agency, Respondent,
v.
Hannah W. Goodwin, Farmers Home Administration,
and United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendants,
Of whom Hannah W. Goodwin is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2010-162006
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-088
Heard February 12, 2013 – Filed February 27, 2013
APPEAL DISMISSED
Hannah W. Goodwin, of Santee, pro se.
Michael J. Anzelmo, Charles Mitchell Brown, William
C. Wood, Jr., all of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, and Robert F. McCurry,
Jr., of Horger Barnwell & Reid, LLP, of Orangeburg, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Pro se Appellant, Hannah Goodwin, seeks review of the trial
court's order implementing a settlement agreement arising out of a condemnation
action between her and Respondent, Lake Marion Regional Water Agency. We
dismiss the appeal as untimely.
"The requirement [for a timely] notice of appeal is jurisdictional, i.e., if a party
misses the deadline, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal
and has no authority or discretion to 'rescue' the delinquent party by extending or
ignoring the deadline for service of the notice." Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361
S.C. 9, 15, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004); accord Camp v. Camp, 386 S.C. 571, 574,
689 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2010) (stating courts have "no authority to extend or expand
the time" for serving a notice of appeal). Accordingly, this court must dismiss an
untimely appeal without considering its merits. Canal Ins. Co. v. Caldwell, 338
S.C. 1, 5, 524 S.E.2d 416, 418 (Ct. App. 1999).
A notice of appeal must be filed and served on all respondents within thirty days
after receipt of written notice of entry of the order. Rule 203(a)-(b), SCACR. A
timely motion to alter or amend, however, tolls this thirty-day period until the trial
court resolves that motion. Id.; Elam, 361 S.C. at 14-15, 602 S.E.2d at 775; State
v. Cooper, 342 S.C. 389, 397, 536 S.E.2d 870, 875 (2000).
"To be timely, a post-trial motion to alter or amend must be served within ten days
of receipt of written notice of the entry of the original order or judgment." Canal,
338 S.C. at 5, 524 S.E.2d at 418 (emphasis added); accord Rule 59(e), SCRCP.
Under Rule 5(b)(1), SCRCP, two methods exist for properly serving a motion upon
a party with a known address. "Service . . . shall be made by delivering a copy . . .
or by mailing it to him . . . ." Rule 5(b)(1), SCRCP (emphases added).
"[D]elivery" includes both "handing" over of the copy, or "leaving" it at his office
or place of abode, while "[s]ervice by mail is complete upon mailing of . . . papers .
. . ." Id.
Because Appellant's intended motion was not served upon Water Agency, it was
incapable of staying the time to file a notice of appeal. See Rule 203(b), SCACR;
Rule 5(a), SCRCP; Canal, 338 S.C. at 5, 524 S.E.2d at 418. Therefore, Appellant's
notice of appeal, filed more than thirty days after receiving written notice of the
trial court's original order, was untimely. See Rule 203(b), SCACR; Cooper, 342
S.C. at 397, 536 S.E.2d at 875; Canal, 338 S.C. at 5, 524 S.E.2d at 418. Because
Appellant missed the applicable deadline, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider
her appeal and has no discretion to ignore this defect. See Elam, 361 S.C. at 15,
602 S.E.2d at 775; Canal, 338 S.C. at 5, 524 S.E.2d at 418 (stating failure to timely
file a notice of appeal divests an appellate court of jurisdiction). Thus, we must
dismiss.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.