From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tatnall v. Gardner

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
May 20, 2002
350 S.C. 135 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)

Summary

In Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138, 564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App. 2002), this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an order denying a defendant's motion to amend her answer to assert third party claims against a co-defendant because the order neither determined a substantial matter nor prevented a judgment from being rendered from which the defendant could then seek review.

Summary of this case from Finan v. Vista Wings, LLC

Opinion

Opinion No. 3498.

Submitted April 8, 2002.

Filed May 20, 2002.

Appeal From Beaufort County, Thomas Kemmerlin, Jr., Special Circuit Court Judge.

APPEAL DISMISSED

Patrick M. Higgins and Stephen P. Hughes, of Howell, Gibson Hughes, of Beaufort, for appellant.

R. Nicholas Felix, of Bethea, Jordan Griffin; and J. Ray Westmoreland, both of Hilton Head, for respondents.


This is an appeal from an order denying Joy Logan's motions to reconsider and amend her pleadings to assert third party claims against Betty Jo Gardner. Because all third party claims are permissive, the trial court's order denying Logan's motions to reconsider and amend neither determines a substantial matter "forming the whole or part of some cause of action," nor prevents "a judgment from being rendered in the action" from which Logan could appeal. Therefore, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and it is dismissed without prejudice.

"The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a proceeding is determined by the Constitution, the laws of the state, and is fundamental." Anderson v. Anderson, 299 S.C. 110, 115, 382 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1989). Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived even with consent of the parties. Hunter v. Boyd, 203 S.C. 518, 525, 28 S.E.2d 412, 416 (1943). The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time including when raised for the first time on appeal to this Court.Brown v. State, 343 S.C. 342, 346, 540 S.E.2d 846, 848-49 (2001). Furthermore, this Court must, on its own motion, raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction to ensure the "orderly administration of justice." State v. Castleman, 219 S.C. 136, 139, 64 S.E.2d 250, 252 (1951).

[This Court] shall have appellate jurisdiction for correction of errors of law in law cases, and shall review upon appeal:

(1) Any intermediate judgment, order or decree in a law case involving the merits in actions commenced in the court of common pleas . . .

(2) An order affecting a substantial right made in an action when such order (a) in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken or discontinues the action, (b) grants or refuses a new trial or (c) strikes out an answer or any part thereof or any pleading in any action . . .

S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-300(1)-(2) (1977). Absent some "specialized statute," this Court is not permitted to hear a case on appeal not comporting with the requirements of this section. Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 242-43, 460 S.E.2d 392, 393-94 (1995); see also Rule 201, SCACR (stating an appeal may only "be taken . . . from any final judgment or appealable order"); Rule 72, SCRCP (stating an appeal may only "be taken . . . from any final judgment or appealable order").

"To involve the merits," pursuant to section 14-3-330(1), "the order must `finally determine some substantial matter forming the whole or part of some cause of action or defense.'" Peterkin v. Bringman, 319 S.C. 367, 368, 461 S.E.2d 809, 810 (1995) (quoting Mid-State Distribs., Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., 310 S.C. 330, 334, 426 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1993) (citations omitted)); see Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C. 469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991); cf. Collins v. Sigmon, 299 S.C. 464, 466, 385 S.E.2d 835, 836 (1989) (holding an order allowing the amendment of pleadings is generally not immediately appealable).

Pursuant to section 14-3-330(2), this Court may not review an order that "does not prevent a judgment from being rendered in the action, and [from which the] appellant can seek review . . . in any appeal from [the] final judgment." Peterkin, 319 S.C. at 368, 461 S.E.2d at 810; see Mid-State Distribs., 310 S.C. at 334 n. 4, 426 S.E.2d at 780 n. 4; see also Robertson v. Bingley, 6 S.C. Eq. (1 McCord Eq.) 333, 351 (Ct.App. 1826) ("[A]n order which does not put a final end to the case, nor establish any principle which will finally affect the merits of the case, nor deprive the party of any benefit which he may have at a final hearing, ought to be considered an interlocutory order, from which no appeal ought to be allowed."); Marshall v. Winter, 250 S.C. 308, 312, 157 S.E.2d 595, 596-97 (1967) (indicating an order denying a motion is not appealable before final judgment in any respect in which it does not deprive the movant of a substantial right).

In the present case, the trial court's order denying Logan's motion to amend her answer to assert third party claims against Gardner neither determines a substantial matter "forming the whole or part of some cause of action," nor prevents "a judgment from being rendered in the action" from which Logan could then seek review. See Peterkin, 319 S.C. at 368, 461 S.E.2d at 810; Mid-State Distribs., 310 S.C. at 334 n. 4, 426 S.E.2d at 780 n. 4. At the conclusion of the present action, Logan may either appeal the trial court's order denying her motion to amend or file a separate, first-party suit against Gardner. See N.C. Fed. Sav. Loan Assoc. v. Dav. Corp., 298 S.C. 514, 519, 381 S.E.2d 903, 906 (1989) (holding third party claims are permissive in nature and may be brought in subsequent actions).

Accordingly, Logan's appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSED. HEARN, C.J., and GOOLSBY, J., concurring.

Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.


Summaries of

Tatnall v. Gardner

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
May 20, 2002
350 S.C. 135 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)

In Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138, 564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App. 2002), this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an order denying a defendant's motion to amend her answer to assert third party claims against a co-defendant because the order neither determined a substantial matter nor prevented a judgment from being rendered from which the defendant could then seek review.

Summary of this case from Finan v. Vista Wings, LLC

In Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138, 564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App. 2002), this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an order denying a defendant's motion to amend her answer to assert third party claims against a co-defendant because the order neither determined a substantial matter nor prevented a judgment from being rendered from which the defendant could then seek review.

Summary of this case from Finan v. Vista Wings, LLC

dismissing the defendant's appeal of an order denying her motions to reconsider and amend her pleadings to assert third-party claims and noting that at the conclusion of the present action, the defendant "may either appeal the trial court's order denying her motion to amend or file a separate, first-party suit against [the third-party defendant]"

Summary of this case from Harbath v. Sanders

explaining an order which does not put a final end to the case, establish any principle which will finally affect the merits of the case, or deprive a party of any benefit which he may have at a final hearing is not appealable

Summary of this case from Coffey v. Webb
Case details for

Tatnall v. Gardner

Case Details

Full title:Mary Tatnall f/k/a Mary Dunn, Plaintiff, v. Betty Jo Gardner and Joy…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: May 20, 2002

Citations

350 S.C. 135 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002)
564 S.E.2d 377

Citing Cases

Hagood v. Sommerville

An order which does not finally end a case or prevent a final judgment from which a party may seek appellate…

Tillman v. Tillman

We next consider section 14-3-330(2), specifically whether the trial court's order affects Appellant's…