Turner v. Sawadske

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
Nancy Schaffer Turner, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Martha L. Schaffer, Appellant,
v.
Susan Linda Schaffer Sawadske, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2013-000457
Appeal From Berkeley County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-081
Submitted December 1, 2015 – Filed February 24, 2016
VACATED
Nancy Schaffer Turner, of Bennett, North Carolina, pro
se.
Andrew T. Shepherd and Katherine H. Hyland, both of
Hart Hyland Shepherd, LLC, of Summerville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Nancy Schaffer Turner appeals the circuit court's order affirming
the probate court's finding that the statute of limitations barred Turner's request to
set aside a deed. We vacate the circuit court's order and reinstate the probate
court's order because the appeal to the circuit court was untimely. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 62-1-308(a) (Supp. 2015) ("The notice of intention to appeal to the circuit
court must be filed in the office of the circuit court and in the office of the probate
court and a copy served on all parties not in default within ten days after receipt of
written notice of the appealed from order . . . ."); In re Estate of Cretzmeyer, 365
S.C. 12, 14, 615 S.E.2d 116, 116-17 (2005) ("[Section 62-1-308(a)] is clear that the
notice of appeal 'must be filed' in the circuit court within the ten-day period.");
Great Games, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 339 S.C. 79, 82 n.5, 529 S.E.2d 6, 7
n.5 (2000) ("The failure of a party to comply with the procedural requirements for
perfecting an appeal may deprive the court of 'appellate' jurisdiction over the
case . . . ."); Gallagher v. Evert, 353 S.C. 59, 68-69, 577 S.E.2d 217, 221-22 (Ct.
App. 2002) (vacating a circuit court's ruling and reinstating a probate court's award
when the appealing party failed to timely appeal to the circuit court).
VACATED.1
FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.