From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Otten v. Otten

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Oct 8, 1985
287 S.C. 166 (S.C. 1985)

Summary

stating a motion made under Rule 60, SCRCP, does not toll the running of the time for appeal

Summary of this case from Tirone v. Dailey

Opinion

October 8, 1985.


ORDER

Oct. 8, 1985.

Respondent brought this action for separate maintenance and support and for an equitable division of marital property. After a hearing, the family court judge signed an order proposed by respondent's counsel. Appellant moved pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(a), SCRCP, to modify the order. Because of appellant's uncertainty as to the effect the motions would have on the time for appeal, he served and filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant now moves this Court to remand the matter for consideration of his motions. The motion to remand is granted and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

We take this opportunity to comment on the effect Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(a) motions have on the time for the filing of appeals.

Rule 59(e), provides that a "motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." Under Rule 59(f), when such a motion is made, the time for appeal from the judgment begins to run from the time of the order granting or denying the motion.

Rule 60(a), allows the correction of clerical mistakes in judgments. A motion made under this provision does not toll the running of the time for appeal.

It is ordered that this appeal is dismissed without prejudice.


Summaries of

Otten v. Otten

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Oct 8, 1985
287 S.C. 166 (S.C. 1985)

stating a motion made under Rule 60, SCRCP, does not toll the running of the time for appeal

Summary of this case from Tirone v. Dailey

stating that when a motion to alter or amend is made under Rule 59, "the time for appeal from the judgment begins to run from the time of the order granting or denying the motion"

Summary of this case from Canal Ins. Co. v. Caldwell

stating a motion made under Rule 60, SCRCP, does not toll the running of the time for appeal

Summary of this case from Coward Hund Construction Co. v. Ball Corp.

stating that when a party makes a motion for reconsideration, "the time for appeal from the judgment begins to run from the time of the order granting or denying the motion"

Summary of this case from Coward Hund Construction Co. v. Ball Corp.
Case details for

Otten v. Otten

Case Details

Full title:Karen C. OTTEN, Respondent, v. Martin B. OTTEN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 8, 1985

Citations

287 S.C. 166 (S.C. 1985)
337 S.E.2d 207

Citing Cases

Coward Hund Construction Co. v. Ball Corp.

Rule 59 (f), SCRCP. See Ottenv. Otten, 287 S.C. 166, 167, 337 S.E.2d 207, 208 (1985) (stating that when a…

Williams v. Condon

Id.; see Canal Ins. Co. v. Caldwell, 338 S.C. 1, 524 S.E.2d 416 (Ct.App. 1999). On the other hand, motions…