From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunn v. Dunn

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 9, 1996
(S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 1996)

Opinion

October 9, 1996.


ORDER

Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that appellant did not timely serve her notice of appeal. We agree and grant the motion.

After considering post-trial motions, the trial judge issued an order denying the motions. The order contained a clerical error. On its own volition, and without any additional motions being made by either party, the trial judge issued a supplemental order correcting the error. Appellant served her notice of appeal within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the second order, but beyond thirty days after receipt of written notice of the entry of the first order. A notice of appeal shall be served on all respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order of judgment. Rule 203(b)(1)(3), SCACR. Clerical mistakes in orders may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative. Rule 60(a), SCRCP. A motion made under Rule 60(a) does not toll the running the time for appeal. Otten v. Otten, 287 S.C. 166, 337 S.E.2d 207 (1985). Timely service of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Mears v. Mears, 287 S.C. 168, 337 S.E.2d 206 (1985). If the notice of appeal is not timely served, jurisdiction is never vested in this court and the appeal must be dismissed. Southbridge Properties. Inc. v. Jones, 292 S.C. 198, 355 S.E.2d 535 (1987). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Dunn v. Dunn

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 9, 1996
(S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 1996)
Case details for

Dunn v. Dunn

Case Details

Full title:Roxanne Conrad Dunn, Appellant v. Douglas Leatherbridge Dunn, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 9, 1996

Citations

(S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 1996)

Citing Cases

Tillman v. City of Carthage

annon, 15 S.W. 755; Waldemeyer v. Loebig, 121 S.W. 75; Hughes v. Bent, 81 S.W. 931; Shuslky v. Shulsky, 157…

Hald v. Pearson

The instrument under consideration did not vest a fee simple title to the land in William Pearson because the…