questions of law de novo.” Town of Summerville v. City of N. Charleston, 378 S.C. 107, 110, 662 S.E.2d 40, 41 (2008). “When a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the court has no right to impose another meaning.” Regions Bank v. Strawn, 399 S.C. 530, 541, 732 S.E.2d 230, 236 (Ct.App.2012). “When ‘the language of an act gives rise to doubt or uncertainty as to legislative intent, the construing court may search for that intent beyond the borders of the act itself.’ ” Id. at 542, 732 S.E.2d at 236 (citation omitted). On its face, the statute refers to a “final judgment,” which is a well-established term of art in the law to which great significance is attached. See Good v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 201 S.C. 32, 21 S.E.2d 209 (1942) (<HOLDING>); see also Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v.
holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees holding if a judgment determines the applicable law while leaving open questions of fact it is not a final judgment holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that the trial courts rule 54b ala r civ p certification of its partial summary judgment on a single claim leaving open the amount of damages was erroneous therefore the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there was no final judgment