Crotty v. Windjammer Village

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

Elizabeth A. Crotty and James K. Orzech, Appellants,

v.

Windjammer Village of Little River, South Carolina,
Property Owners' Association, a South Carolina
Eleemosynary Corporation, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213287

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-249
Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed May 13, 2015

AFFIRMED

Elizabeth A. Crotty and James K. Orzech, both of Little
River, pro se.

Kenneth Ray Moss, of Wright, Worley, Pope, Ekster &
Moss, PLLC, of North Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Elizabeth A. Crotty and James K. Orzech appeal a circuit court
order denying their Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motion. They assert four issues in their
statement of issues on appeal, arguing the circuit court erred in denying relief from
its final order because of (1) the mistaken interpretation of contract terms in the
final order, (2) newly discovered evidence, (3) inadequate representation by
counsel, and (4) Fourteenth Amendment violations and unintended consequences
of the final order. Crotty and Orzbech did not appeal the circuit court's finding that
the Rule 60(b) motion was not timely filed within one year of the final order.
Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authority: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010) ("Under
the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the
appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the
unappealed ground will become the law of the case.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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