A motion to reconsider should set forth with particularity the grounds for which it is filed. How detailed should it be? Today the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed that issue in Camp v. Camp. The short answer is that it doesn’t have to be detailed at all if it doesn’t prejudice either party and the court can deal fairly with the motion.
In Camp, the mother and father were already divorced. Later the son began attending USC. The divorce decree did not address college tuition. Mother and son successfully sued father for seventy percent of the tuition and expenses. Father filed a motion to reconsider:
PLEASE be advised that the Defendant through his undersigned attorney, will move before the Honorable David Sawyer, Jr., to reconsider the ruling in his Order dated July 26, 2006, in awarding Plaintiff, William James Camp’s college expenses and costs.
This motion hearing is set to be heard on the 18th day of October, 2006, at 3:45 o’clock, p.m.
Please be present to defend if so minded.
That was it. That was the entire motion. Not surprisingly, the family court denied father’s motion. Father appealed.
It is important to look at the timeline for father’s motion and appeal. He filed the motion to reconsider on time. He filed the appeal on time. The appeal was filed within thirty days of the family court’s denial of the motion. Unfortunately, it was filed over three months after the original order. Mother argued the motion didn’t comply with the Rule 7, South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore, it shouldn’t toll the time for filing the appeal. The court of appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal as untimely.
The South Carolina Supreme Court first noted that the case raised a novel question, then cited federal court jurisprudence in its analysis and then reversed. Here is the analysis.
Rule 7, SCRCP requires that motions “shall state with particularity the grounds therefor.” According to the opinion, the particularity requirement is flexible for each case and should not be applied in an overly technical manner. The policy of the rule is to prevent prejudice and to allow the court to consider the motion fairly. That was done in this case according to the opinion.
Justice Waller dissented. He quoted from the Court of Appeals opinion:
Our rules clearly state the requirements for motions and for appeals. Permitting a post-trial motion that identifies neither the grounds on which it relies nor the relief sought to stay the time for appeal under Rule 59(e), SCRCP, would undermine our procedural rules. Moreover, it would encourage parties to file baseless post-trial motions with the expectation of “filling in the blanks” at a later date.
He went on to add the following concerning the Majority’s conclusion:
[I]t will create unnecessary fact-intensive inquiries by our appellate courts to determine whether parties were – in fact – prejudiced by an insufficient motion.
A novel question has been answered and I guess we can file a motion to reconsider without setting out too many particulars. But I don’t think I would. I will follow up on this in my next post.
Grand Strand Family Law Blog 