Opinion ID: 1296702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: February 7, 1994 Order

Text: Respondent initially argues that because Appellants did not immediately appeal the February 7 order, it is not subject to current review. [3] We disagree. As a general rule, only final judgments are appealable. Bolding v. Bolding, 283 S.C. 501, 323 S.E.2d 535 (Ct.App.1984). Any judgment or decree, leaving some further act to be done by the court before the rights of the parties are determined, is interlocutory [and not final]. Mid-State Distribs. Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., 310 S.C. 330, 426 S.E.2d 777 (1993). Clearly the February 7 order did not constitute a final judgment. A divorce was granted on August 5, 1994. While normally this order would constitute the final judgment, at that time the sanctions issue was still pending against Appellants. Thus, the rights of the parties had not been completely determined until January 17, 1995, when the judge gave his final sanctions order. See S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1977 & Supp.1995) (if no appeal be taken until final judgment is entered the court may upon appeal from such final judgment review any intermediate order or decree necessarily affecting the judgment not before appealed from).