Opinion ID: 1329179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Award of Additional Attorneys' Fees

Text: Orr also argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award additional attorneys' fees because the filing of the notice of appeal regarding the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion stayed the matters on appeal. We disagree. The general rule is that the service of a notice of appeal in a civil matter acts to automatically stay matters decided in the order on appeal, and to automatically stay the relief ordered in the appealed order, judgment, or decree. Rule 225(a), SCACR. The automatic stay continues in effect for the duration of the appeal.... The lower court retains jurisdiction over matters not affected by the appeal including the authority to enforce any matters not stayed by the appeal. Id. (emphasis added). The order of foreclosure which directed the sale of the property is simply not a matter that was stayed by the appeal of the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion; it was a separate order which Orr did not appeal. Thus, the award of additional attorneys' fees, which was requested pursuant to that former order, was within the trial court's jurisdiction. See id. In other words, because the only appeal pending at the time the trial court awarded additional attorneys' fees was the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, that is the only order that would be automatically stayed; the general rule does not authorize a stay of the underlying order of judgment or order of foreclosure. Cf. In re Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 941 F.2d 293, 295 (5th Cir.1991) (where the court, applying analogous federal rules, reversed the district court's stay of execution of the underlying judgment where the only appeal pending was the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion). Accordingly, Orr's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award additional attorneys' fees is without merit.