Peterson v. Peterson ( 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
Brenda Peterson, Respondent,
v.
Hughie Peterson, Jr., Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-205606
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Anne Gue Jones, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-085
Heard February 12, 2013 – Filed February 20, 2013
APPEAL DISMISSED
Lawrence Keitt, of the Law Office of Lawrence Keitt, of
Orangeburg, for Appellant.
Lewis C. Lanier, of Lanier & Burroughs, LLC, of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Hughie Peterson, Jr. appeals the family court's final order in his
divorce from Brenda Peterson, arguing the family court erred in apportioning the
parties' assets. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authority: Elam v. S.C. Dept. of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 20, 602 S.E.2d
772, 778 (2004) (holding an appeal is "barred due to untimely service of the notice
of appeal when a party–instead of serving a notice of appeal–files a successive
Rule 59(e) motion, where the trial judge's ruling on the first Rule 59(e) motion
does not result in a substantial alteration of the original judgment." (citation
omitted)).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
FEW, C.J., and GEATHERS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.