Raby Construction, L.L.P. v. Orr, 358 S.C. 10

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the denial of Henry Orr's Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a consent judgment and foreclosure order in a mechanic's lien dispute. The court held that the alleged nondisclosure of documents and fabrication of evidence constituted intrinsic rather than extrinsic fraud, and that the evidence could have been discovered through due diligence during the underlying litigation. The court also held that the trial court retained jurisdiction to award additional attorneys' fees because the appeal did not stay the separate foreclosure order.

Holdings

1. South Carolina maintains the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud under Rule 60(b)(3), SCRCP, even when the motion is filed within one year of entry of judgment. Relief under Rule 60(b)(3) is available for extrinsic fraud, but not intrinsic fraud.
2. The trial court properly denied relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) because the evidence and alleged misconduct could have been discovered through due diligence during the underlying litigation.
3. The trial court retained jurisdiction to award additional attorney's fees because Orr's appeal concerned only the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion and did not stay the separate foreclosure order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Orr's Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) motion based on alleged fraud, misconduct, and newly discovered evidence.
2. Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award additional attorney's fees while Orr's appeal from the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion was pending.

Disposition

affirmed