LeNora Harrison v. Otis Speight

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

LeNora M. Harrison, Appellant,

v.

Otis D. Speight, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000216

Appeal From York County
David G. Guyton, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-065
Submitted January 31, 2023 – Filed February 22, 2023

AFFIRMED

LeNora M. Harrison, of Fort Mill, pro se.

James Creighton Hayes, of Robert W. Hayes, Jr., LLC, of
Rock Hill, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: LeNora M. Harrison appeals the family court order denying her
Rule 60(b), SCRCP motion to set aside the order of dismissal. On appeal, she asserts
the family court erred by denying her motion because: (1) there is no time
requirement for which a motion to set aside a judgment based on fraud upon the
court must be filed; (2) her attorney improperly represented her interests such that
there was no real contest; and (3) there is no time requirement for which a motion to
set aside a judgment pursuant to extrinsic fraud against a party or fraud upon the
court must be filed. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the family court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harrison's Rule
60(b) motion. See Ware v. Ware, 404 S.C. 1, 10, 743 S.E.2d 817, 822 (2013) ("The
decision to deny or grant a motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP is within
the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Sanders v. Smith, 431 S.C. 605, 611, 848
S.E.2d 604, 607 (Ct. App. 2020) (stating this court reviews such a decision under an
abuse of discretion standard); Ware, 404 S.C. at 10, 743 S.E.2d at 822 ("An abuse
of discretion occurs when the order of the court is controlled by an error of law or
where the order is based on factual findings that are without evidentiary support.");
Perry v. Heirs at L. of Gadsden, 357 S.C. 42, 46, 590 S.E.2d 502, 504 (Ct. App.
2003) ("A party seeking to set aside a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) has the
burden of presenting evidence entitling h[er] to the requested relief."); Rule 60(b)
("This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to
relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for
fraud upon the court."); Perry, 357 S.C. at 47, 590 S.E.2d at 504 ("Although other
motions to reopen judgments based on fraud must be filed within a year of the
judgment or order, Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from an order for 'fraud
upon the court' after the expiration of one year."). Here, Harrison was aware her
attorney and Otis D. Speight sought to dismiss the action with prejudice. If she
believed fraud was occuring, she failed to take action to protect herself or correct
what she believed was an improper disposition. See King v. Oxford, 282 S.C. 307,
312, 318 S.E.2d 125, 128 (Ct. App. 1984) ("It is the policy of the courts not only to
discourage fraud, but also to discourage negligence and inattention to one's own
interests."); id. ("A party must avail h[er]self of the knowledge or means of
knowledge open to h[er]. The court will not protect the person who, with full
opportunity to do so, will not protect h[er]self." (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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