Transportation Associates v. Bishop ( 2015 )

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
Transportation Associates, Inc., Respondent,
v.
Joseph T. Bishop, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-000552
Appeal From Greenville County
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-006
Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed January 7, 2015
DISMISSED
Randall Scott Hiller, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Ronald G. Bruce, of Greer, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Because Joseph T. Bishop failed to timely serve his notice of
appeal, this appeal is dismissed. See Coward Hund Constr. Co. v. Ball Corp., 336
S.C. 1, 4, 518 S.E.2d 56, 58 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding a successive Rule 59(e),
SCRCP, motion following the denial of a similar motion does not toll the time for
filing an appeal when the trial court's ruling on the first Rule 59(e) motion did not
change its ruling from trial); id. at 3, 518 S.E.2d at 58 ("[A] second motion for
reconsideration is appropriate only if it challenges something that was altered from
the original judgment as a result of the initial motion for reconsideration. In such a
case, a new judgment has replaced the previous judgment and the party aggrieved
by the alteration may move for reconsideration."); Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR ("A
notice of appeal shall be served on all respondents within thirty (30) days after
receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment."); Mears v. Mears, 287
S.C. 168, 169, 337 S.E.2d 206, 207 (1985) ("Service of the notice of intent to
appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this [c]ourt has no authority to extend or
expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served.").1
DISMISSED.2
HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
1
We also find the appeal fails on the merits. First, we find the trial court did not
violate the Due Process Clause by determining the width of the easement because
the trial court afforded Appellant notice that the issue would be considered, an
opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and a fair hearing. See Blanton v.
Stathos, 351 S.C. 534, 541, 570 S.E.2d 565, 569 (Ct. App. 2002) ("Due process is
flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation
demands."). Second, we find the trial court's determination of the width of the
easement was supported by evidence, including the deed, the plat, photographs of
the right-of-way, and the parties' testimony.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.