McFarland v. Mazell

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

William McFarland, Appellant,

v.

Sofia Mazell, Michael Mazell, Pierceton Mazell, and
Faith Mazell, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000141

Appeal From Dorchester County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-427
Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed August 19, 2015

APPEAL DISMISSED

Amanda R. Maybank and Jason A Daigle, of Maybank
Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellant.

William B. Jung, of William B. Jung, Esq., LLC, of Mt.
Pleasant, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: On September 25, 2012, Sofia, Michael, Pierceton, and Faith
Mazell filed a complaint and motion for a restraining order against William
McFarland for harassment and stalking. On October 12, 2012, the magistrates
court held a hearing and issued a restraining order effective until April 12, 2013.
Thereafter, the circuit court affirmed the magistrates court's order. McFarland now
appeals to this court, arguing the circuit court erred in affirming the restraining
order. Because the restraining order expired on April 12, 2013, we find a ruling on
the issues pending before this court will have no practical effect on the parties.
Accordingly, we dismiss1 the appeal as moot. See Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557,
567, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("An appellate court will not pass on moot and
2015controversy."); id. ("A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered, will
have no practical legal effect upon [the] existing controversy." (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

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