Coffey v. Webb

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

Michael David
Coffey, Appellant,

v.

Lisa A. Webb
n/k/a Lisa Strid, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Family Court Judge

Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-536 

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December
5, 2011

DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART

Michael D. Coffey, of Greenville, pro se.

James D. Calmes, III, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

Don J. Stevenson, of Greenville, for
Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  Michael David Coffey (Father) appeals
from two separate family court orders.  First, Father appeals the family
court's pre-trial order setting a date certain for the hearing on Father's
complaint for change of custody, arguing the family court nullified its jurisdiction
by committing fraud.  Second, Father appeals the family court's final order
dismissing his complaint for change of custody, arguing the family court did
not have subject matter jurisdiction due to his pending appeal of the pre-trial
order.  We dismiss[1] Father's appeal of the pre-trial order and affirm the family court's final
order pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to Father's
appeal of the pre-trial order:  Tatnall v. Gardner, 350 S.C. 135, 138,
564 S.E.2d 377, 379 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining an order which does not put a
final end to the case, establish any principle which will finally affect the
merits of the case, or deprive a party of any benefit which he may have at a final
hearing is not appealable); Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C.
469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991) (explaining an order restoring a case to
the active docket is not directly appealable).

2.  As to
whether the family court had subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss Father's
complaint:  Brown v. Greenwood Sch.
Dist. 50 Bd. of Tr., 344 S.C. 522,
524-25, 544 S.E.2d 642, 643 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Where an order is
interlocutory, and thus not appealable, the notice of intent to appeal does not
transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court.").

DISMISSED IN
PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

HUFF, PIEPER,
and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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