From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mears v. Mears

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 29, 1985
287 S.C. 168 (S.C. 1985)

Summary

explaining service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and the appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which parties must serve the notice of intent to appeal

Summary of this case from Baracco v. Beaufort Cnty.

Opinion

August 29, 1985.


ORDER

Aug. 29, 1985.

Appellant petitions this Court to relax Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A and § 1 C. Respondent has filed a return in which she opposes the petition.

Appellant's counsel received written notice that the order had been rendered on April 29, 1985. Appellant did not serve the notice of intent to appeal on opposing counsel until June 14, 1985.

Under Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A, the notice of intent to appeal should have been served on the opposing party or his attorney within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice that the order had been rendered. Therefore, appellant's service of the notice of intent to appeal was untimely by some thirty-six (36) days.

Service of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and this Court has no authority to extend or expand the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served. Stroup v. Duke Power Co., 216 S.C. 79, 56 S.E.2d 745 (1949); Wade v. Gore, 154 S.C. 262, 151 S.E. 470 (1930); Renneker v. Warren, 20 S.C. 581 (1884). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. First Carolina National Bank v. A S Enterprises, Inc., 272 S.C. 339, 251 S.E.2d 762 (1979).

We note that Act No. 100 of 1985 has repealed S.C. Code Ann. § 18-9-60 (1976) upon which Supreme Court Rule 1, § 1 A, is based. Despite this repeal, the timely service of the notice of intent to appeal will remain a jurisdictional requirement.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Mears v. Mears

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 29, 1985
287 S.C. 168 (S.C. 1985)

explaining service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and the appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which parties must serve the notice of intent to appeal

Summary of this case from Baracco v. Beaufort Cnty.

stating "[s]ervice of the notice of intent to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement," and courts are unable to extend or expand the time in which the notice of appeal must be served

Summary of this case from S.C. Dep't of Consumer Affairs v. Entera Holdings, LLC

explaining timely service of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and the appellate courts have no authority to extend the time in which the notice of intent to appeal must be served

Summary of this case from State v. Stewart
Case details for

Mears v. Mears

Case Details

Full title:Patricia Flatley MEARS, Respondent, v. George Stephen MEARS, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Aug 29, 1985

Citations

287 S.C. 168 (S.C. 1985)
337 S.E.2d 206

Citing Cases

Williams v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles

This Court has no authority to expand the time within which Appellant had to request a contested case hearing…

Williams v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't & Workforce

See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(1); S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-750; see also Elam v. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9,…