Rene Ronaghan v. Howard Charpia (7)

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

Rene McMasters, now Rene McMasters Ronaghan,
Respondent,

v.

H. Wayne Charpia and Jody E. Charpia, Defendants,

Of Whom H. Wayne Charpia is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000952

Appeal From Dorchester County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-235
Submitted June 6, 2023 – Filed June 14, 2023

AFFIRMED

H. Wayne Charpia, of Summerville, pro se.

Frank M. Cisa, of The Law Firm of Cisa & Dodds, LLP,
of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: H. Wayne Charpia appeals the circuit court's administrative
dismissal of his Rule 60(b), SCRCP, motion, titled "Motion to set aside sale/void
and set aside judgment." On appeal, Charpia argues multiple issues. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the circuit court was not required to hold a hearing on Charpia's motion.
See RE: Operation of the Trial Courts During the Coronavirus Emergency (As
Amended August 27, 2021), 2020-000447 (S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated August 27,
2021) (explaining judges are encouraged to continue to follow the following
guidance to ensure the timely and just resolution of cases: "A trial judge may elect
not to hold a hearing when the judge determines the motion may readily be decided
without further input from the lawyers.").

We further hold the circuit court did not err by administratively dismissing
Charpia's motion, which was supported by the allegation of fraud upon the court,
because Charpia filed the motion in 2021—more than one year after the 2017 sale.
See Rule 60(b)(3), SCRCP ("On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court
may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (3) fraud . . . ."); id. ("The motion shall
be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than
one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken."). 1

AFFIRMED. 2

KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
In light of this court's disposition, we need not address Charpia's remaining
issues. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613,
518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not review remaining
issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.