Livingston v. Simmons

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 Supreme Court
Allen Livingston, Respondent,
v.
Harold Simmons, Petitioner.
Appellate Case No. 2021-001234
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Charleston County
The Honorable Mikell R. Scarborough, Circuit Court
Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2022-MO-008
Submitted May 18, 2022 – Filed June 15, 2022
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Harold Simmons, pro se, of North Charleston, Petitioner.
Allen Livingston, pro se, of Ravenel, Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the dismissal of his
appeal by the court of appeals on the ground that his notice of appeal was not
timely served. It appears Petitioner sought to appeal the foreclosure order and the
denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. The time for serving the
notice of appeal was stayed by the motion to alter or amend the judgment. See
Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR (providing that a motion to alter or amend the judgment
under Rule 52 or Rule 59, SCRCP, stays the time for appeal, which runs from
receipt of written notice of entry of the order granting or denying the motion).
Because the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment was received
by counsel for Petitioner on May 2, 2016, the notice of appeal served on May 30,
2016 was timely. See id. (requiring a notice of appeal to be served on all
respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or
judgment). Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense
with further briefing, reverse the order of the court of appeals, and remand this
matter for consideration of Petitioner's appeal on the merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.