The order was signed Nov. 25, clocked into the Kershaw County Courthouse Dec. 1 and forwarded to Camden City Council and the city manager Thursday.

The order codifies what Lloyd stated in a letter to the attorneys representing both sides in the case Nov. 6.

In that letter, Lloyd said he planned to side with an argument made by Camden City Attorney Charles V.B. Cushman III that the court no longer had jurisdiction in the case because the Kershaw County Clerk of Court and Kurshner had both failed to notify the city of the appeal in a timely manner.

Cushman stated during an Oct. 16 hearing on the case that the city had only learned of the appeal after receiving an August 2003 letter from Kurschner`s attorney, William Tetterton, informing him of the clerk of court`s failure. A section of the city code, modeled after similar state code, states that such notifications must be made immediately upon filing appeals. Failing that, Cushman said, a S.C. Rule of Civil Procedure allows for notification within 30 days. It was 18 months before Tetterton contacted Cushman and reminded the court to notify the city of Kurschner`s appeal.

The order, drawn up by Cushman for Lloyd to sign, goes over the facts of the case, stating that Kurschner had sought to subdivide a portion of the 5.4-acre historic property in order to create 10 new lots while retaining a two-acre parcel immediately surrounding the home. The order states the commission turned down the plan based on Section 157.41 of the City Code. It then goes on to speak to the timeliness issue, justifying Lloyd`s decision to determine that his court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

``S.C. Code ... provides that upon the filing of an appeal, the Clerk of the Circuit Court shall give immediate notice of it to the Secretary of the Planning Commission,`` the order states. ``Respondent (Camden City Planning and Zoning Commission) argues and I so find the appeal should be dismissed because timely notice thereof was not given to Respondent.``

It states Rule 74 of the S.C. Rules of Civil Procedures requires the petitioner, in this case Kurschner through Tetterton, to serve a notice of the appeal not only with the court but also with the respondent within 30 days of the commission`s decision.

``(The) Petitioner merely filed the Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of Court and failed to serve Respondent. Respondent argues and I so find that timely service of the Notice of Appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. I therefore find that based upon the failure of the Clerk of Court to notify Respondent of the pendency of the appeal for some eighteen (18) months following the filing of the appeal and Petitioner`s failure to serve the Notice of Appeal upon Respondent, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal,`` the order reads.

In his Nov. 6 letter, Lloyd also wrote, ``Further ... I find that the decision of the Planning Commission is correct as a matter of law.`` However, the signed order does not speak to that opinion, limiting itself only to the timeliness issue.

``I just received the order a few days ago, and I`ve forwarded it to them,`` said Tetterton of the Kurschners. ``We`ll be meeting next week to discuss what they want to do next.``