THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

County of Beaufort, a political subdivision of South Carolina, Appellant,

v.

Towne Center, LLC, and First South Bank, Respondents,

Appeal From Beaufort County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-492   
Heard November 1, 2011 – Filed November 7, 2011

APPEAL DISMISSED

D. Reese Williams, III, and Kathleen M. McDaniel, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Howell V. Bellamy, Jr., and Robert T. Shelton, of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent Towne Center, LLC; and Jeffrey Silver, of Columbia, for Respondent First South Bank.

PER CURIAM:  In this condemnation action, the County of Beaufort (the County) appeals the trial court's denial of the County's motion to amend its condemnation notice.  The County argues the trial court abused its discretion in holding Towne Center, LLC and First South Bank (the Bank) would be prejudiced by the County's proposed amendment.  Towne Center and the Bank contest these arguments and raise additional sustaining grounds that the case is unappealable and moot.  We dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(1), (2)(c) (1977) ("The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction for correction of errors of law in law cases, and shall review upon appeal: (1) Any intermediate judgment, order or decree in a law case involving the merits in actions commenced in the court of common pleas and general sessions, brought there by original process or removed there from any inferior court or jurisdiction . . . [and] (2) An order affecting a substantial right made in an action when such . . . (c) strikes out an answer or any part thereof or any pleading in any action."); Baldwin Constr. Co. v. Graham, 357 S.C. 227, 230, 593 S.E.2d 146, 147 (2004) (holding an order denying a motion to amend a pleading was not immediately appealable because the trial court did not rule on the substantive contents of the pleading sought to be amended; rather, the trial court merely refused to allow the amended pleading's filing); Jefferson v. Gene's Used Cars, Inc., 295 S.C. 317, 318, 368 S.E.2d 456, 456 (1988) (holding an order denying a motion to file a late answer was not appealable because it neither involved the merits nor struck a pleading; the order ruled only that the appellants failed to show good cause and refused to allow the pleading's filing).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.