Rainwater v. Rainwater

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

Diane K.
Rainwater, Respondent,

v.

Fred A. Rainwater, Appellant.

Appeal From Union County

Robert E. Guess, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-286

Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9,
2012

AFFIRMED

Stevens B. Elliott, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

David M. Collins, Jr., of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Fred
A. Rainwater (Husband) appeals the family court's denial of his Rule 60(b),
SCRCP, motion to vacate its order approving the property division agreed upon
by the parties and granting the parties a divorce, arguing the family court
erred in finding his motion was untimely and in denying it on the merits. We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court
erred in denying Husband's Rule 60(b) motion as untimely: Lanier v. Lanier,
364 S.C. 211, 215-16, 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision
to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b) is within the sound discretion of
the [family] court[, and r]eview is thus limited to determining whether the
family court abused its discretion in granting or denying the motion."
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to Husband's
remaining issues: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335
S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not
address additional issues when one issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

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

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