Edwards v. Edwards

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

Martha F.
Edwards, Respondent,

   v.

Michael E.
Edwards, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

George E. McFaddin, Jr., Family Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-047

Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed February
4, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Richard C. Jones and Richard T. Jones, both
of Sumter, for Appellant.

G. Murrell Smith, Jr., of Sumter, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Michael
E. Edwards (Husband) appeals the family court's denial of his Rule 60, SCRCP
motion.  Husband argues the family court erred in denying his motion because:
(1) a portion of the family court's final order dated October 26, 2006 was void
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) his motion was timely; and (3) it
is inequitable to require him to make monthly equitable distribution payments
for the remainder of his life and after his death without the ability to modify
the payments.  We affirm.[1]

1. As to
whether a portion of the family court's
final order dated October 26, 2006 was void for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction:  Husband's case concerns issues of spousal support and the
equitable division of marital property, and the family court exercises
exclusive jurisdiction over both issues.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 63-3-530
(2010) ("The family court has exclusive jurisdiction . . . to hear and
determine actions for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, separate support and
maintenance, legal separation, and in other marital litigation between the
parties, and for settlement of all legal and equitable rights of the parties in
the actions in and to the real and personal property of the marriage."). 

2. As to whether
Husband's Rule 60 motion was untimely: Husband did not make his motion in a
reasonable amount of time after the family court's final order.  See Rule
60(b), SCRCP (stating a motion to void a judgment "shall be made within a
reasonable amount of time . . . after the judgment, order, or proceeding was
entered.").  Husband failed to file a motion to void the alimony terms
until eighteen months after the final order despite (1) testifying at the
hearing that he agreed with the terms of the settlement agreement; and (2) being
aware of the finalized terms when the family court approved the settlement
agreement on October 26, 2006.  Accordingly, the family court did not abuse its
discretion in finding Husband's Rule 60 motion was untimely.  See McDaniel
v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 324 S.C. 639, 644, 478 S.E.2d 868, 871 (Ct.
App. 1996) (holding whether a party makes a "Rule 60 motion within a
reasonable time is a matter addressed to the trial judge's sound discretion,
and an appellate court will not disturb that determination absent abuse of
discretion.").[2] 
    

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

[2]  We decline to address Husband's remaining argument
because resolution of Husband's arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction
and timeliness is dispositive.  See Whiteside v. Cherokee County Sch. Dist. No. One,
311 S.C. 335, 340, 428 S.E.2d 886, 889 (1993) (finding the appellate court need
not address a remaining issue when the resolution of a prior issue is
dispositive).