Rainwater v. Rainwater

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

Diane K. Rainwater, Respondent,

v.

Fred A. Rainwater, Appellant.

Appeal From Union County
Robert E. Guess, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-286
Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012

AFFIRMED

Stevens B. Elliott, of Columbia, for Appellant.

David M. Collins, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Fred A. Rainwater (Husband) appeals the family court's denial of his Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motion to vacate its order approving the property division agreed upon by the parties and granting the parties a divorce, arguing the family court erred in finding his motion was untimely and in denying it on the merits. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in denying Husband's Rule 60(b) motion as untimely: Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215-16, 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b) is within the sound discretion of the [family] court[, and r]eview is thus limited to determining whether the family court abused its discretion in granting or denying the motion." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to Husband's remaining issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not address additional issues when one issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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