Court Opinion

ID: 9963008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 14:10:16.733096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:45.484587
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                 In The Supreme Court

   Margaret A. Eberly and Barbara J. Pavelik, Plaintiffs,

   v.

   Advanced Flooring & Design Division of ISI, LLC;
   Archer Exteriors, Inc.; Crossroads Enterprises, LLC; D.R.
   Horton, Inc.; East Coast Construction Cleanup Corp.;
   Hutton's Landscapes, Inc.; Lather Construction SC, Inc.;
   Lather Construction, Inc.; Professional Drywall & Paint
   Services, LLC; Professional Exteriors II, LLC; and Valim
   Construction, LLC, Defendants,

   Of which D.R. Horton, Inc. is the Petitioner,

   And

   Hutton's Landscapes, Inc.; Lather Construction SC, Inc.;
   and Lather Construction, Inc. are the Respondents.

   Appellate Case No. 2022-001719

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

                Appeal from Beaufort County
               Bentley Price, Circuit Court Judge

                      Opinion No. 28199
         Submitted April 15, 2024 – Filed April 24, 2024
                         REVERSED AND REMANDED

             Carl F. Muller, of Carl F. Muller, Attorney at Law, P.A.,
             of Greenville; Thomas Elihue Dudley, III, John T.
             Crawford, Jr. and Jason Michael Imhoff, of Kenison
             Dudley & Crawford, LLC, of Greenville, all for Petitioner.

             Emily Gifford Lucey, of Richardson Plowden &
             Robinson, of Mt. Pleasant, and Carmen Vaughn
             Ganjehsani, of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, of
             Columbia, both for Respondent Hutton's Landscapes, Inc.;
             Scott Harris Winograd, Jeffrey A Ross, Philip Paul
             Cristaldi, III, and Brenten Heath DeShields, all of Ross &
             Cristaldi, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents Lather
             Construction SC, Inc. and Lather Construction, Inc.

PER CURIAM: We granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review an order of
the court of appeals dismissing this appeal because the notice of appeal was not
timely served. We reverse and remand.
In this case, two plaintiffs filed an action against a home builder—D.R. Horton—
and various subcontractors.         D.R. Horton filed cross-claims against the
subcontractors. The circuit court granted summary judgment against D.R. Horton
on its cross-claims against Hutton's Landscapes, Inc. and Lather Construction, Inc.,
by order filed March 11, 2022. The circuit court denied D.R. Horton's Rule 59(e),
SCRCP, motion on March 24, 2022.

D.R. Horton electronically filed (E-Filed) a notice of appeal in the circuit court E-
Filing System on April 11, 2022. See Rule 203(d)(1)(A), SCACR (requiring that a
notice of appeal from the circuit court be filed with the clerk of the circuit court and
the clerk of the appellate court). Pursuant to the provisions of the South Carolina
Electronic Filing Policies and Guidelines (SCEF), all the parties were served with a
Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) that was automatically transmitted by e-mail to
all counsel immediately after the notice of appeal was E-Filed. See Section 4(e)(2),
SCEF ("[U]pon the E-Filing of any pleading, motion, or other paper subsequent to
the summons and complaint or other filing initiating a case, the E-Filing System will
automatically generate and transmit an NEF to all Authorized E-Filers associated
with that case," and "the E-Filing of that pleading, motion, or other paper, together
with the transmission of an NEF, constitutes proper service under Rule 5, SCRCP,
as to all other parties who are E-Filers in that case."). This notice of appeal specified
that D.R. Horton was appealing the order granting the motions for summary
judgment filed by Lather Construction and Hutton's Landscapes, and copies of the
order granting summary judgment and the order denying D.R. Horton's Rule 59(e)
motion were E-Filed together with the notice of appeal.

D.R. Horton subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the court of appeals on April
13, 2022. The certificate of service filed with this notice of appeal indicates only
the clerk of the circuit court and counsel for the plaintiffs, rather than counsel for
Lather Construction and Hutton's Landscapes or any other parties, were served with
the notice by U.S. Mail. On April 28, 2022, after the thirty-day deadline to serve
any notice of appeal passed, D.R. Horton filed an amended notice of appeal
correcting the caption of the case and including proof of service on counsel for all
parties. See Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR (requiring that a notice of appeal be served on
all respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order
or judgment).

Lather Construction and Hutton's Landscapes filed motions to dismiss, arguing D.R.
Horton failed to timely serve a notice of appeal on them by a method authorized
under the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. In its order dismissing the appeal,
the court of appeals found D.R. Horton failed to timely serve the notice under Rule
262 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules. The court further found the
attempt of electronic service by NEF was not in compliance with this Court's order
governing electronic service under Rule 262, SCACR. See Methods of Electronic
Filing and Service Under Rule 262 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules,
S.C. Sup. Ct. Order (as amended May 6, 2022).

At the time of service of this notice of appeal, Rule 262, SCACR, permitted service
by personal delivery, U.S. Mail, or "by electronic means in a manner provided by
order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina." The order cited in the rule provides
that "[a] lawyer admitted to practice law in South Carolina may serve a document
on another lawyer admitted to practice law in South Carolina using the lawyer's
primary e-mail address listed in the Attorney Information System (AIS)." Methods
of Electronic Filing and Service Under Rule 262 of the South Carolina Appellate
Court Rules, para. (d)(1), S.C. Sup. Ct. Order (as amended May 6, 2022).1

The language in these rules and orders has created confusion over whether service
by NEF meets the requirements for serving a notice of appeal under the South
Carolina Appellate Court Rules. This confusion is understandable given that Rule
203 mandates a notice of appeal be filed in the lower court in addition to the appellate
court, and any court where E-Filing is mandated or authorized provides for
automatic service of E-Filed documents. Furthermore, NEFs generated by the E-
Filing System affirmatively state that service is complete and list the parties who
have been served and any other parties that may need to be served by some other
method of service.

Today, we resolve this confusion by issuing an amended order under Rule 262,
SCACR, concerning the permissible methods of service of a notice of appeal. In
addition to other forms of authorized electronic service, that order states a notice of
appeal may be served in accordance with any Electronic Filing Policies and
Guidelines, or other similar rules established by order of this Court, that permit the
electronic filing and service of documents. Methods of Electronic Filing and Service
Under Rule 262 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, S.C. Sup. Ct. Order
(as amended April 24, 2024).
Further, because there was no appropriate guidance with respect to this issue at the
time of the service of this notice of appeal, we reverse the court of appeals' order
dismissing the appeal and hold that automatic service of the NEF upon the E-Filing

1
  The Supreme Court first allowed service by e-mail in an order addressing the
COVID emergency. Operation of the Appellate Courts During the Coronavirus
Emergency, para. (g)(3), S.C. Sup. Ct. Order filed March 20, 2020 ("During this
emergency, this Court authorizes a lawyer admitted to practice law in this state to
serve a document on another lawyer admitted to practice law in this state using the
lawyer's primary e-mail address listed in the Attorney Information System (AIS).").
The Court subsequently amended Rule 262(a) and (c), SCACR, to provide that, in
addition to traditional methods of filing and service, documents in appellate cases
may be filed and served "by electronic means in a manner provided by order of the
Supreme Court of South Carolina," and the Court promulgated the above-referenced
order incorporating the provisions of the emergency order with respect to service by
e-mail.
of a notice of appeal constitutes proper service of the notice of appeal as to parties
who are represented by counsel and proceeding in the E-Filing System. 2 We remand
to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits of the appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.

2
 Service of the notice of appeal by NEF would not be effective for a self-represented
party because NEFs are only transmitted to Authorized E-Filers, and the only current
Authorized E-Filers are attorneys who are licensed to practice in this state. See
Section 4(e)(2), SCEF ("NEFs are only transmitted via email to Authorized E-Filers
who are counsel of record"); Section 4(e)(5), SCEF ("E-Filed motions, pleadings, or
other papers that must be served upon a party who is not represented by an
Authorized E-Filer in the case or who is a Traditional Filer must be served by a
Traditional Service method in accordance with Rule 5, SCRCP, or any order of the
Supreme Court issued under Rule 613, SCACR.").