Stafford v. Stafford

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

---

Bobby G. Stafford, Petitioner,

v.

Margaret Stafford, Respondent.

---

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

---

Appeal From Lexington County
Richard W. Chewning, III, Family Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No.  2009-MO-013
Heard March 3, 2009 – Filed March 9, 2009 

---

AFFIRMED

---

John E. Cheatham, of Lexington, for Petitioner.

Carlton Bruce Bagby, of Columbia, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  We granted writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ unpublished order dismissing the appeal of Appellant.  Having fully considered the record and applicable law, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: USAA Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Clegg, 377 S.C. 643, 652, 661 S.E.2d 791, 796 (2008) (holding this Court grants deference to the circuit court’s credibility determination when evaluating the timeliness of a motion for reconsideration, as the circuit court is in a better position to evaluate credibility and assign comparative weight to testimony); Green v. Green, 320 S.C. 347, 351, 465 S.E.2d 130, 132 (Ct. App. 1995) (stating that the proper standard of review when determining if a motion was timely served by mail is abuse of discretion).[1]

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.

---

[1]  This Court carefully reviewed the underlying proceeding in connection with Appellant’s Rule 59, SCRCP, motion.  Our decision to affirm the dismissal results in no prejudice to Appellant for Appellant’s post-trial motion was meritless and certainly would have been denied.