### THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECED ENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD
NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVID ED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Charles E. Strickland, III , Latisha D. Strickland and Justin R. Dillon, Petitioners,

v.

Marjorie E. Temple, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000990

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI T O THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Lexington County The Honorable James O. Spe nce, Master-in-Equity

Memorandum Opinion No. 2018-MO-015 Submitted March 7, 2018 – Filed April 4, 2018

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Frederick Ivey Hall, III, of The Rick Hall Law Firm, LLC, of Lexington, for Petitioners.

Rolland E. Greenburg, III, of Rolland E. Greenburg, III, PA, and Spencer Andrew Syrett , both of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: Petitioners seek a writ of certio rari to review an order of dismissal of the court of appeals. We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and remand to the court of appeals.

Petitioners filed this action to foreclose on an equitable inte rest in real property
and/or terminate a conditional sa les agreement and bond for title. The master-in

equity terminated the agreemen t after respondent conceded she had no equitable interest in the property. Petitioners thereafter filed a motio n for a separate award of attorney fees and Rule 11 sa nctions. The master signed and filed an order denying petitioners' requested r elief on June 4, 2015. The mas ter's assistant e

mailed a clocked copy to counsel f or both parties the same day. A second clocked copy of the order, this time al ong with a Form 4, was e-mailed to counsel on June
16. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP, on June 26. On September 1, the master denied petitioners' Rul e 59(e) motion, but
found that the motion was time ly filed. Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal on September 28. The court of appeal s found that petitioners' appeal was untimely and granted respondent's motion to dismiss. The court of appea ls found the ten day period to file a motion for rec onsideration began on June 4, wh en the order was first e-mailed to the parties, m aking petitioners' Rule 59(e) m otion untimely, and ultimately making petitioners' app eal untimely, as the post-tri al motion did not operate to toll the thirty day per iod for service of the notice of an appeal. See 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 th e order."); Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR ("When a timely . . . motion to alter or amend the judgment . . . has been made, the time for app eal for all parties shall be stayed and shall run from receipt of written notice of entry of the order granting or denying such motion.").

In dismissing petitioners' appeal, the court of appeals cited Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

v. Fallon Properties South Carolina, LLC , 413 S.C. 642, 776 S.E.2d 575 (Ct. App. 2015), in which the court of app eals found that an e-mail from the office of the master-in-equity with the order on appeal attached constituted written notice of entry of the order under Rule 2 03(b)(1), SCACR, and dismissed t he appeal because the appellants served their notic e of appeal more than thirty d ays after receipt of the e-mail. This Court recently issued an opinion affirming, a s modified, the court of appeals decision in Wells Fargo

, supra

. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fallon Properties S.C., LLC , Op. No. 27773 (Sup. Ct. filed Feb. 28, 2018). We held that an e-mail providing written notice of entry of an order or judg ment for purposes of Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR triggers the time to appear as long as th e e-mail isreceived from the court, an atto rney of record, or a party. Ho wever, we also held that our ruling on this issue is to apply prospectively , and therefore remanded the case to the court of appeals to allow the appeal to proceed on its merits.

The same rationale applies in the case at hand. Accordingly, w e reverse the order of the court of appeals and remand this matter for a ruling on the merits of petitioners' appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTRED GE, HEARN, and JAMES, JJ., concur. FEW, J.
, not participating.