UP-445 - Patton v. American Lifestyle Homes

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Terry and Suzette Patton, Appellants, v. American Lifestyle Homes, LLC, Rufus G. Revis d/b/a American Lifestyle Homes, and Anderson Brothers Concrete, LLC, Marcus Clinkscales a/k/a Marcus Anderson d/b/a Anderson Brothers Concrete, LLC, and Scott Brown, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2015-000647 Appeal From Anderson County R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-445 Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed November 2, 2016 AFFIRMED Candy M. Kern-Fuller, of Upstate Law Group, LLC, of Easley, for Appellants. Geoffrey William Gibbon and Jeanmarie Tankersley, both of McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent Scott Brown. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 40(j), SCRCP (providing for the tolling of the statute of limitations for a claim stricken under this subsection if the claim is restored upon motion made within one year of the date stricken); Maxwell v. Genez, 356 S.C. 617, 621, 591 S.E.2d 26, 28 (2003) ("[T]he unambiguous language [of Rule 40(j), SCRCP,] provides that, if the claim is restored within one year after it is stricken, the statute of limitations is tolled for that period."); Bowman v. Richland Mem'l Hosp., 335 S.C. 88, 91, 515 S.E.2d 259, 260 (Ct. App. 1999) ("An order is not final until it is written and entered by the clerk of court."); Upchurch v. Upchurch, 367 S.C. 16, 24, 624 S.E.2d 643, 647 (2006) ("Entry of the order occurs when the clerk of court files the order."), disapproved of on other grounds by Miles v. Miles, 393 S.C. 111, 711 S.E.2d 880 (2011). AFFIRMED.1 LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.