Minniti v. Steedley

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 30, 2013
• Docket: 2013-UP-049
• Status: Unpublished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

Eugenia Minniti, f/k/a Eugenia Steedley, Appellant,

v.

M. Scott Steedley, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-189366

Appeal From Colleton County Peter L. Fuge, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-049 Submitted December 1, 2012 – Filed January 30, 2013

AFFIRMED

Thomas Ryan Phillips, of Law Office of T. Ryan Phillips, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant.

M. Scott Steedley, of Walterboro, pro se.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: Gainey v. Gainey, 382 S.C. 414, 423, 675 S.E.2d 792, 796 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b)[, SCRCP,] is within the sound discretion of the [family] court." (citation omitted)); id. at 423, 675 S.E.2d at 797 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the [court] issuing the order was controlled by an error of law or the order is based on factual conclusions that are without evidentiary support."); id. at 427, 675 S.E.2d at 799 ("When a party asserts grounds for relief because of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party under Rule 60(b)(3), SCRCP, the movant must prove her entitlement by clear and convincing evidence."); id. at 426, 675 S.E.2d at 798 ("A party may not prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion on the basis of fraud where he or she has access to disputed information or has knowledge of inaccuracies in an opponent's representations at the time of the alleged misconduct." (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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