SC Judicial Department

2006-UP-254 - Reynolds v. Reynolds

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Horace Reynolds, Jr., Appellant,

v.

Diane Reynolds, Respondent.

Appeal from Richland County
George M. McFaddin, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-254
Submitted May 1, 2006 � Filed May 19, 2006��

REMANDED

Horace Reynolds, Jr., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Diane Reynolds, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellant, Horace Reynolds, Jr., appeals from an order of the family court finding a non-lawyer prepared the legal documents in this matter, thus constituting the illegal practice of law.� Reynolds bases his appeal on the family court judge�s dismissal of his action.� In our review, it appears the order continues this matter rather than dismisses it, which is consistent with the trial court�s oral ruling.� �It is well settled that an order granting a continuance is an interlocutory order not involving the merits and is, thus, not directly appealable.�� Walker v. Springs Indus., Inc., 298 S.C. 249, 251, 379 S.E.2d 729, 730 (Ct. App. 1989); Temples v. Ramsey, 285 S.C. 600, 602, 330 S.E.2d 558, 559 (Ct. App. 1985). However, because the handwritten order is not clear, we remand to the family court judge who heard this case for clarification of the status of the case.[1]

REMANDED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1]We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.