Opinion ID: 1386567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Timing of the Appeal

Text: Wife argues that the court of appeals erred in dismissing her appeal as untimely. We agree. Our Court rules provide that [a] notice of appeal shall be served on all respondents within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment. Rule 203(b), SCACR (emphasis added). Generally, a judgment is effective only when so set forth and entered in the record. Rule 58(a) SCRCP. An order is not final until it is entered by the clerk of court; and until the order or judgment is entered by the clerk of the court, the judge retains control of the case. Bowman v. Richland Mem'l Hosp., 335 S.C. 88, 91, 515 S.E.2d 259, 260 (Ct.App.1999) (citations omitted). However, the moment . . . [the order] is filed by the clerk of court, it becomes the judgment of the court, and fixes the rights of the parties. Archer v. Long, 46 S.C. 292, 295, 24 S.E. 83, 84 (1896). Stated otherwise, the effective date of an order is not when it is signed by the judge, but when it is entered by the clerk of court. Bowman, 335 S.C. at 93, 515 S.E.2d at 261. Two court of appeals cases offer further analysis as to when notice occurs under our procedural rules. In Bowman v. Richland Mem'l Hosp ., the trial court dismissed the respondent as a party based on the appellants' failure to amend the complaint within ten (10) days of the date of the trial court's order. Id. at 90, 515 S.E.2d at 259. The order was signed on September 19, 1996, but was not entered by the clerk until September 23, 1996. The appellants served an amended complaint on October 2, 1996, which was 13 days after the order was signed and 9 days after the order was filed. The court of appeals held that the appellant's amendment of the complaint was timely, finding that the final and effective date of the trial judge's order was the date the order was entered by the clerk of court . . ., not when the order was signed. Id. at 92, 515 S.E.2d at 261. In Rosen, Rosen & Hagood v. Hiller, the court of appeals addressed the notice requirement under Rule 12(a), SCRCP. [1] 307 S.C. 331, 415 S.E.2d 117 (Ct.App.1992). The appellant in the Rosen case made a motion to the trial court for a change of venue. The motion was denied after the appellant failed to appear at the hearing. The respondent's attorney mailed a letter to the appellant which included an unsigned, undated, and unfiled copy of the order issued by the court denying appellant's motion. The respondent subsequently moved for an order of default because the appellant did not file an answer as required by Rule 12(a), SCRCP. The appellant argued that he had not received notice of the court's action because he had not received the signed, dated, and filed order as required by Rule 77(d), SCRCP. [2] The court of appeals rejected this argument, stating we see nothing in Rule 12(a) that requires the actual filed order be served upon a party to affect notice [of the court's action]. Id at 334, 415 S.E.2d at 118. Because a critical issue of this case is entry of the order of judgment, we find the instant case more comparable with Bowman. In Bowman, the court held that principles of fairness and equity required a finding of timeliness because parties to an action are not provided notice of a judge's ruling at the time the judge signs an order. Rather, only after the order is filed with the clerk of court are the parties given notice of the order. Bowman, 335 S.C. at 92, 515 S.E.2d at 261. To hold Wife responsible for notice of an event that had not yet occurred runs afoul of the notions of fairness and equity articulated in Bowman. By its plain language, Rule 203(b) requires notice of entry of the order. Entry of the order occurs when the clerk of court files the order. Delivery of the order to the clerk is not analogous to the entry of the order. Accordingly, we hold that the time to file a notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 203(b), SCACR, begins to run when written notice that the order has been entered into the record by the clerk of court has been received. Therefore, the May 31st letter from the judge's assistant was not notice of entry of judgment; the very language of the letter indicated that the order had not yet been filed. Accordingly, the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal as untimely.