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 Supreme Court 

Mokhtar Elkachbendi, Petitioner, 

v. 

Anne K. Elkachbendi, Suzanne H. Ruth, Individually and 

as Trustee of the Suzanne H. Ruth Revocable Trust UDO 

February 25, 2003, Daniel Ruth and Suzanne H. Ruth 

Revocable Trust, Defendants, 

Of Whom Anne K. Elkachbendi is, Respondent, 

v. 

Nouhza Elkachbendi Warning, Third Party Defendant. 

Appellate Case No. 2012-213244 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Charleston County 

The Honorable Paul W. Garfinkel, Family Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-035 

Submitted August 27, 2014 – Filed September 17, 2014 

REVERSED 
 

Gregory Samuel Forman, of Gregory S. Forman, PC, of 

Charleston, for Petitioner. 

Theresa Marie Wozniak Jenkins, of Ameika DeVane & 

Mack, of Charleston, and David L. DeVane, of 

Summerville, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of 

Appeals' decision in Elkachbendi v. Elkachbendi, Op. No. 2012-UP-479 (S.C. Ct. 

App. filed Aug. 15, 2012). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, 

reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, and remand the case to the family court to 

rule on petitioner's Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), 

SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue I: Rule 59(e), SCRCP ("A motion to 

alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after receipt of 

written notice of the entry of the order.") (emphasis added); USAA Property and 

Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg, 377 S.C. 643, 661 S.E.2d 791 (2008) (in determining the 

timeliness of a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider, the Court presumed counsel was 

being truthful when representing the date she received notice of entry of the order, 

and cited Rule 407(1), SCACR ("A lawyer, being a member of the legal 

profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public 

citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice."); Rule 3.3(a)(1), 

RPC ("A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a 

tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made 

to the tribunal by the lawyer."); Rule 4.1(a), RPC ("In the course of representing a 

client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law 

to a third person."); Rule 8.4(d), RPC ("It is professional misconduct for a lawyer 

to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."); 

Upchurch v. Upchurch, 376 S.C. 16, 624 S.E.2d 643 (2006) (finding notice of 

future entry of an order was not notice of entry of judgment); Green v. Green, 320 

S.C. 347, 465 S.E.2d 130 (Ct. App. 1995) (noting the postal service is not infallible 

and the postmark date on an envelope is not dispositive evidence of timely 

service). Issue II: See Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 682 S.E.2d 804 (2009) 

(where an appellate court's disposition of an issue reverses the lower court's 

decision, the issue of attorney's fees is remanded for reconsideration); Patel v. 
Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 599 S.E.2d 114 (2004) (finding an award of attorney's fees 

lies within the sound discretion of the family court and will not be disturbed absent 

an abuse of discretion). 

REVERSED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. 

HEARN, J., not participating.