(2005). “An order generally must fall into one of several categories set forth in that statute in order to be immediately appealable.” Hagood, 362 S.C. at 195, 607 S.E.2d at 708. Payne asserts the order is immediately appealable under section 14-3-330(2), which provides for the immediate appeal of an interlocutory order affecting a substantial right made in an action when such order (a) in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken or discontinues the action, (b) grants or refuses a new trial or (c) strikes out an answer or any part thereof or any pleading in any action. Payne could seek review of the order granting Rule 60(b) relief following final judgment in the case. See Peterkin v. Brigman, 319 S.C. 367, 368, 461 S.E.2d 809, 810 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the order does not strike out
holding such denial to be an immediately appealable collateral final order holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants holding that an order awarding attorney fees is not appealable and instead the proper appeal lies from the judgment or amended judgment entered on the order holding an order refusing to enforce a settlement agreement is not immediately appealable because it does not prevent a judgment from being rendered in the action and appellant can seek review of the current order in any appeal from final judgment holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action