County of Beaufort v. Towne Center

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

County of
Beaufort, a political subdivision of South Carolina, Appellant,

v.

Towne Center,
LLC, and First South Bank, Respondents,

Appeal From Beaufort County

Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-492   

Heard November 1, 2011 – Filed November 7,
2011

APPEAL DISMISSED

D. Reese Williams, III, and Kathleen M.
McDaniel, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Howell V. Bellamy, Jr., and Robert T.
Shelton, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent Towne Center, LLC; and Jeffrey Silver,
of Columbia, for Respondent First South Bank.

PER CURIAM:  In this condemnation action, the County of Beaufort
(the County) appeals the trial court's denial of the County's motion to amend
its condemnation notice.  The County argues the trial court abused its
discretion in holding Towne Center, LLC and First South Bank (the Bank) would
be prejudiced by the County's proposed amendment.  Towne Center and the Bank contest
these arguments and raise additional sustaining grounds that the case is unappealable
and moot.  We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(1),
(2)(c) (1977) ("The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction for
correction of errors of law in law cases, and shall review upon appeal: (1)
Any intermediate judgment, order or decree in a law case involving the merits
in actions commenced in the court of common pleas and general sessions, brought
there by original process or removed there from any inferior court or
jurisdiction . . . [and] (2)
An order affecting a substantial right made in an action when such
. . . (c) strikes out an answer or any part thereof or any pleading
in any action."); Baldwin Constr. Co. v. Graham, 357 S.C. 227, 230,
593 S.E.2d 146, 147 (2004) (holding an order denying a motion to amend a
pleading was not immediately appealable because the trial court did not rule on
the substantive contents of the pleading sought to be amended; rather, the
trial court merely refused to allow the amended pleading's filing); Jefferson
v. Gene's Used Cars, Inc., 295 S.C. 317, 318, 368 S.E.2d 456, 456 (1988) (holding
an order denying a motion to file a late answer was not appealable because it
neither involved the merits nor struck a pleading; the order ruled only that
the appellants failed to show good cause and refused to allow the pleading's
filing).

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

FEW, C.J., and
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.