914 S.E.2d 158
S.C.2025Background
- Jill and Kenneth Swing underwent a divorce trial, resulting in a detailed family court order addressing multiple issues, including property division and child custody.
- After the initial June 8, 2021 Final Order, Jill timely filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend.
- The family court partially granted Jill's motion and issued an Amended Final Order on August 27, 2021.
- Kenneth then filed his own Rule 59(e) motion on September 10, 2021, seeking relief from the Amended Final Order.
- The family court later found Kenneth's motion "untimely" and denied it; when Jill appealed, the court of appeals dismissed her appeal as untimely, reasoning Kenneth’s motion didn’t toll the appeal period.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify whether a "timely" Rule 59(e) motion that is allegedly procedurally improper tolls the deadline for appeal under Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR.
Issues
| Issue | Swing (Jill) Argument | Swing (Kenneth) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a "timely" Rule 59(e) motion toll the time for appeal? | Kenneth's timely motion should stay the appeal deadline. | His motion was untimely and successive, not tolled. | Timely Rule 59(e) motion stays deadline unless it fits narrow exceptions. |
| Definition of “timely” under Rules 203(b)(1) and 59(f) | Timely means within 10 days of order notice. | If motion attacks only prior, not amended order, untimely. | Timely means served within 10 days of entry of order addressed. |
| Applicability of exceptions from Coward Hund and Quality Trailer | Kenneth’s motion was initial and not identical, so exceptions do not apply. | Jill’s appeal untimely due to improper/successive motion. | Exceptions only for truly successive/identical motions; not here. |
| Unique family court context | Divorce orders are interwoven; amendments affect multiple issues. | Rules should apply equally; motion did not address amended order. | Family court decisions differ and support broader interpretation of timeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 602 S.E.2d 772 (clarifies limits of when a second Rule 59(e) motion tolls appeals deadline)
- Coward Hund Construction Co. v. Ball Corp., 336 S.C. 1, 518 S.E.2d 56 (sets exception for truly successive post-trial motions)
- Quality Trailer Products, Inc. v. CSL Equipment Co., 349 S.C. 216, 562 S.E.2d 615 (exception to tolling for identical issues already ruled)
- Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 353 S.C. 559, 579 S.E.2d 524 (applies Quality Trailer exception to cases with virtually identical new trial motions)
- Camp v. Camp, 386 S.C. 571, 689 S.E.2d 634 (tolling occurs even when a Rule 59(e) motion is procedurally deficient)