Guys , we are never going to beat this system. Only way to be done with this madness is Gender Equally. Divorce severs economic attachment . Oh and repeal SSA title 4D and 4E . If not they will play games and keep ruining kids. And parents . It’s their pleasure.
Judge must be removed off the bench. She’s a disgrace to the judicial canons. Wrecking parents and wrecking a childhood for a child that needs to have a happy one. God is watching….
Two motions must now be filed by Sewell: (1) Pursuant to South Carolina Rule 59, SCRCP Motion for Reconsideration to Set Aside and/or Alter or Amend Final Order and Clarification of Denial of William Sewell's Constitutional Rights in "Judge" Kimmons Court on grounds under Rule 59 (e), SCRCP that judge failed to consider all evidence of fraud and deception being committed upon him and failed to consider the constitutional law and custody laws raised by Sewell; and/or newly discovered evidence/uncovered evidence [e.g., Kimmel used her former position as a legislator to deleteriously influence the court proceedings, and allowed Gamache to do the same and allowed Gamache to steal/extort money from Sewell because Sewell attempted to assert his Constitutionally protected PARENTAL RIGHTS; (2) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order based on fraud, deceit, misrepresentation by opposing counsel and litigant, and misconduct by opposing counsel and litigant.
Motions brought pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP (titled “New Trials: Amendment of Judgments”) and Rule 60, SCRCP (titled “Relief from Judgment or Order”) are both commonly thought of as post-trial motions. However, from the perspective of a South Carolina family law attorney, there are four important distinctions between these two rules of procedure.
The first distinction is when they can be filed. A Rule 59 motion “shall be made not later than 10 days after the receipt of written notice of the entry of judgment or of the filing of an order disposing of the action, if no judgment has been entered.” A motion brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1-3) “shall be made within a reasonable time, and … not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.” A motion brought pursuant to Rule 60(a) can be made at any time and a 60(b)(4-5) motion must merely “be made within a reasonable time.”
The second distinction is what issues can be raised in each motion. In an action tried without a jury (which is all family court cases), Rule 59 motion can seek modification “for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in the courts of the State.” Basically, any allegation of error on an issue that was raised at trial, or that could not have been raised at trial, is a basis for a Rule 59 motion.
In contrast, Rule 60 motions can be brought only on narrow and specific grounds. Rule 60(a) motions address clerical mistakes. Rule 60(b)(1-3) motions must allege (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
SPECIFICALLY (3) fraud[1], misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.
Rule 60(b)(4-5) motions must allege (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” If one doesn’t meet one of these criteria, one cannot bring a Rule 60 motion.
A third distinction is what orders can be modified by bringing these motions. Rule 59 speaks of “judgment or of the filing of an order disposing of the action, if no judgment has been entered,” while Rule 60(a) speaks of “judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission” and Rule 60(b) speaks of “final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Essentially, Rule 59 applies to final orders while Rule 60 applies to any order.
In family court this is an important distinction. Essentially, the family court will not allow Rule 59 motions for anything other than final orders or orders dismissing part of a claim or defense. Since Rule 60 motions cannot be based upon mere allegation of error, this inability to bring a Rule 59 motion for temporary or procedural orders hinders a litigant’s ability to address errors in temporary orders.[2]
The final way these two rules differ is that a timely Rule 59 motion tolls the time to file a notice of appeal. See Rule 59(f), SCRCP. A Rule 60 motion does not.
Essentially Rule 59 is a more powerful tool than Rule 60. However, Rule 59 is more time limited than Rule 60. Moreover, a Rule 60 motion can be brought to address any family court order while a Rule 59 motion can only address a small subset of orders. One should never bring a Rule 60(b) motion when one could bring a Rule 59 motion. Yet, when one cannot bring a Rule 59 motion, a Rule 60(b) motion can remedy some injustices.
A Rule 59(e) motion not only acts as a vehicle to request the trial court “to alter or amend
the judgment, but also as a vehicle to seek reconsideration of issues and arguments.” Elam v.
The South Dept. of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 602 S.E. 2d 772 (2004). “A motion under Rule 59(e)
long has been viewed as motion for reconsideration despite the absence of those words from the rule.” Consequently, a party usually is allowed to ask the Court to reconsider its decision even if it means rehashing all or part of an argument previously presented. Id. (citing Arnold v. State,
309 S.C. 157, 420 S.E. 2d 834 (1992). “There is nothing inherently unfair in allowing the party
one final chance not only to call the court’s attention to a possible misapprehension of an earlier
argument, but also to revisit a previously raised argument. It is inherently unfair to disallow such
an opportunity.” Id.
The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate two basic situations in which a
party should consider filing a Rule 59(e) motion. A party may wish to file such a motion when
he believes the Court has misunderstood, failed to fully consider, or perhaps failed to rule on an
argument or issue and the party wishes for the Court to reconsider or rule on it. A party must file
such a motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review. Id
In South Carolina, extrinsic fraud is the only type of fraud for which relief may be granted under Rule 60(b)(3), SCRCP. Extrinsic fraud is fraud that induces a person not to present a case or deprives a person of the opportunity to be heard. Relief is granted for extrinsic fraud on the theory that because the fraud prevented a party from fully exhibiting and trying his case, there has never been a real contest before the court on the subject matter of the action. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud is fraud which was presented and considered at trial. It is fraud which misleads and induces the court to find in favor of the party perpetrating the fraud.
The court grants relief for extrinsic but not intrinsic fraud on the theory that intrinsic deceptions should be discovered during the litigation itself, and to permit such relief would undermine the stability of all judgments. The essential distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud for purposes of relief from judgment is the ability to discover the fraud. Gainey v. Gainey, 382 S.C. 414, 675 S.E.2d 792, 798 (Ct.App. 2009).
[2] Thornton v. Thornton, 328 S.C. 96, 114, 492 S.E.2d 86, 96 (1997) held that each individual child support or alimony installment constitutes a “judgment.” Thus, it would appear temporary orders setting child support or alimony create judgments and a Rule 59 motion would be proper to address those issues.
I have 2 judges Im currently dealing with that have done or said the same things to me. One in NY and one in PA. Who wants to investigate because I've literally contacted everyone?
Guys , we are never going to beat this system. Only way to be done with this madness is Gender Equally. Divorce severs economic attachment . Oh and repeal SSA title 4D and 4E . If not they will play games and keep ruining kids. And parents . It’s their pleasure.
Judge must be removed off the bench. She’s a disgrace to the judicial canons. Wrecking parents and wrecking a childhood for a child that needs to have a happy one. God is watching….
Two motions must now be filed by Sewell: (1) Pursuant to South Carolina Rule 59, SCRCP Motion for Reconsideration to Set Aside and/or Alter or Amend Final Order and Clarification of Denial of William Sewell's Constitutional Rights in "Judge" Kimmons Court on grounds under Rule 59 (e), SCRCP that judge failed to consider all evidence of fraud and deception being committed upon him and failed to consider the constitutional law and custody laws raised by Sewell; and/or newly discovered evidence/uncovered evidence [e.g., Kimmel used her former position as a legislator to deleteriously influence the court proceedings, and allowed Gamache to do the same and allowed Gamache to steal/extort money from Sewell because Sewell attempted to assert his Constitutionally protected PARENTAL RIGHTS; (2) Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order based on fraud, deceit, misrepresentation by opposing counsel and litigant, and misconduct by opposing counsel and litigant.
Motions brought pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP (titled “New Trials: Amendment of Judgments”) and Rule 60, SCRCP (titled “Relief from Judgment or Order”) are both commonly thought of as post-trial motions. However, from the perspective of a South Carolina family law attorney, there are four important distinctions between these two rules of procedure.
The first distinction is when they can be filed. A Rule 59 motion “shall be made not later than 10 days after the receipt of written notice of the entry of judgment or of the filing of an order disposing of the action, if no judgment has been entered.” A motion brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1-3) “shall be made within a reasonable time, and … not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken.” A motion brought pursuant to Rule 60(a) can be made at any time and a 60(b)(4-5) motion must merely “be made within a reasonable time.”
The second distinction is what issues can be raised in each motion. In an action tried without a jury (which is all family court cases), Rule 59 motion can seek modification “for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in the courts of the State.” Basically, any allegation of error on an issue that was raised at trial, or that could not have been raised at trial, is a basis for a Rule 59 motion.
In contrast, Rule 60 motions can be brought only on narrow and specific grounds. Rule 60(a) motions address clerical mistakes. Rule 60(b)(1-3) motions must allege (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
SPECIFICALLY (3) fraud[1], misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.
Rule 60(b)(4-5) motions must allege (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” If one doesn’t meet one of these criteria, one cannot bring a Rule 60 motion.
A third distinction is what orders can be modified by bringing these motions. Rule 59 speaks of “judgment or of the filing of an order disposing of the action, if no judgment has been entered,” while Rule 60(a) speaks of “judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission” and Rule 60(b) speaks of “final judgment, order, or proceeding.” Essentially, Rule 59 applies to final orders while Rule 60 applies to any order.
In family court this is an important distinction. Essentially, the family court will not allow Rule 59 motions for anything other than final orders or orders dismissing part of a claim or defense. Since Rule 60 motions cannot be based upon mere allegation of error, this inability to bring a Rule 59 motion for temporary or procedural orders hinders a litigant’s ability to address errors in temporary orders.[2]
The final way these two rules differ is that a timely Rule 59 motion tolls the time to file a notice of appeal. See Rule 59(f), SCRCP. A Rule 60 motion does not.
Essentially Rule 59 is a more powerful tool than Rule 60. However, Rule 59 is more time limited than Rule 60. Moreover, a Rule 60 motion can be brought to address any family court order while a Rule 59 motion can only address a small subset of orders. One should never bring a Rule 60(b) motion when one could bring a Rule 59 motion. Yet, when one cannot bring a Rule 59 motion, a Rule 60(b) motion can remedy some injustices.
A Rule 59(e) motion not only acts as a vehicle to request the trial court “to alter or amend
the judgment, but also as a vehicle to seek reconsideration of issues and arguments.” Elam v.
The South Dept. of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 602 S.E. 2d 772 (2004). “A motion under Rule 59(e)
long has been viewed as motion for reconsideration despite the absence of those words from the rule.” Consequently, a party usually is allowed to ask the Court to reconsider its decision even if it means rehashing all or part of an argument previously presented. Id. (citing Arnold v. State,
309 S.C. 157, 420 S.E. 2d 834 (1992). “There is nothing inherently unfair in allowing the party
one final chance not only to call the court’s attention to a possible misapprehension of an earlier
argument, but also to revisit a previously raised argument. It is inherently unfair to disallow such
an opportunity.” Id.
The South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate two basic situations in which a
party should consider filing a Rule 59(e) motion. A party may wish to file such a motion when
he believes the Court has misunderstood, failed to fully consider, or perhaps failed to rule on an
argument or issue and the party wishes for the Court to reconsider or rule on it. A party must file
such a motion when an issue or argument has been raised, but not ruled on, in order to preserve it for appellate review. Id
Once Reconsideration is heard,
In South Carolina, extrinsic fraud is the only type of fraud for which relief may be granted under Rule 60(b)(3), SCRCP. Extrinsic fraud is fraud that induces a person not to present a case or deprives a person of the opportunity to be heard. Relief is granted for extrinsic fraud on the theory that because the fraud prevented a party from fully exhibiting and trying his case, there has never been a real contest before the court on the subject matter of the action. On the other hand, intrinsic fraud is fraud which was presented and considered at trial. It is fraud which misleads and induces the court to find in favor of the party perpetrating the fraud.
The court grants relief for extrinsic but not intrinsic fraud on the theory that intrinsic deceptions should be discovered during the litigation itself, and to permit such relief would undermine the stability of all judgments. The essential distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud for purposes of relief from judgment is the ability to discover the fraud. Gainey v. Gainey, 382 S.C. 414, 675 S.E.2d 792, 798 (Ct.App. 2009).
[2] Thornton v. Thornton, 328 S.C. 96, 114, 492 S.E.2d 86, 96 (1997) held that each individual child support or alimony installment constitutes a “judgment.” Thus, it would appear temporary orders setting child support or alimony create judgments and a Rule 59 motion would be proper to address those issues.
I have 2 judges Im currently dealing with that have done or said the same things to me. One in NY and one in PA. Who wants to investigate because I've literally contacted everyone?