Court of Appeals Published Opinions – July 2024
Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.
The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.
7-3-2024 – Opinions
6068 – East Cherry Grove Co., LLC v. State of South Carolina
The State of South Carolina appeals the circuit court’s order finding East Cherry Grove Co., LLC and Ray & Nixon, LLC (collectively, Respondents) owned two respective parcels of real property consisting of tidelands in North Myrtle Beach. The trial of this case involved two parcels of real property: one identified as Tax Map Number 145-00-01-001, in the name of East Cherry Grove (the East Cherry Grove Tract), and the other identified as Tax Map Number 145-02-25-004, in the name of Ray & Nixon (the Ray & Nixon Tract). On appeal, the State argues the circuit court erred by (1) misapplying the law of the case doctrine by applying a decision from an entirely different suit that did not decide the issues presented in this case; (2) applying the standard of proof of preponderance of the evidence instead of clear and convincing evidence; (3) determining Respondents own the entirety of the East Cherry Grove Tract when they presented no evidence they own the portions of the tract referred to as "the pig’s ears" and "dome of the pig’s head"; (4) determining Respondents own the entirety of the East Cherry Grove Tract when the maps relied upon failed to meet standards for the specificity of tidelands conveyances; (5) failing to use and apply the plat of Russell Courtney (the Courtney plat) instead of the overlays Respondents’ expert prepared when the Courtney plat was much more consistent with the specificity and evidence required to establish tidelands conveyances; (6) improperly relying on the testimony of the title opinion expert about the general area included on the tax map of the East Cherry Grove Tract when he was not a surveyor and could not override the testimony of the two surveyors; and (7) failing to clarify that only the State controls navigable waterways. We affirm as modified in part and reverse in part.
6069 – John Deere Construction & Forestry Company v. North Edisto Logging, Inc.
John Deere Construction & Forestry Company (John Deere) filed a breach of contract action arising out of the sale and financing of logging equipment to North Edisto Logging, Inc. and Paul Gunter (collectively, Appellants). Appellants appeal the circuit court’s order addressing John Deere’s motion for summary judgment. Appellants contend the circuit court’s order did not have the effect of granting summary judgment to John Deere on the causes of action it raised in its complaint and therefore, the circuit court did not award a $946,378.65 judgment. Alternatively, Appellants assert that if the circuit court did grant summary judgment on those causes of action and award a judgment, it was erroneous. Appellants further maintain the circuit court erred in granting John Deere summary judgment on Appellants’ counterclaims. We affirm in part and remand.
7-10-2024 – Opinions
6070 – Spring Valley Interests, LLC v. The Best for Last, LLC
Spring Valley Interests, LLC (Spring Valley) appeals the circuit court’s order finding void a contractual purchase option for a portion of property owned by The Best for Last, LLC. The circuit court found the purchase option was void pursuant to the common law Rule Against Perpetuities (CLRAP). Spring Valley argues this was error because the CLRAP has been preempted by the South Carolina Uniform Rule Against Perpetuities, which would provide protection to Spring Valley under the facts of this case. We affirm.
This information is only accurate as of 07/10/24. You must contact SCR for updates and changes to this information after 07/10/24 as laws and regulations may change over time. SCR 803-772-5206 or email info at screaltors.org or email byron at screaltors.org)
This information is not legal advice. This information is intended only to provide general information and may not be relied upon as specific legal guidance. Legal counsel should always be consulted before acting in reliance on this information.