Angelee Medve v. Michael's Wholesale Flooring

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 2024-000245
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Angelee Medve, Respondent,

v.

Michael's Wholesale Flooring, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000245

Appeal From Greenville County Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-119 Submitted March 1, 2025 – Filed April 2, 2025

APPEAL DISMISSED

Robert Karl Merting, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Kimila Lynn Wooten, of Kenison Dudley & Crawford, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael's Wholesale Flooring (MWF) appeals the circuit court's order remanding an action Angelee Medve filed against MWF to the magistrate's court. On appeal, MWF argues the circuit court erred in (1) applying an improper standard of review, (2) allowing Medve to substitute a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure for an appeal, (3) finding the magistrate's court abused its discretion in denying Medve's motion for a continuance, and (4) finding the magistrate's court abused its discretion in denying Medve's Rule 60(b) motion. We dismissal the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the order granting Medve's appeal and remanding to the magistrate's court is not immediately appealable. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Rule 201(a), SCACR ("Appeal may be taken, as provided by law, from any final judgment, appealable order or decision."); Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 12, 625 S.E.2d 205, 208 (2005) ("Any judgment or decree, leaving some further act to be done by the court before the rights of the parties are determined, is interlocutory and not final."); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(b) (2017) (specifying orders that "grant . . . a new trial" are among immediately appealable orders); Pocisk v. Sea Coast Const. of Beaufort, 380 S.C. 584, 587-88, 671 S.E.2d 98, 100-01 (Ct. App. 2008) (finding an interlocutory order granting Rule 60(b) relief was not eligible for immediate appeal under section 14-3-330(2)(b) because the order did not grant a "new trial" when no trial preceded entry of judgment).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.