839 S.E.2d 879
S.C.2020Background
- Petitioners (Bluestein and Albenesius) own former oceanfront lots on Sullivan's Island; the Town owns the intervening accreting land that has grown seaward over time.
- After Hurricane Hugo, in 1991 the Town conveyed the accreting land to Lowcountry Open Land Trust, which transferred it back to the Town subject to deed restrictions aimed at preserving the land "in its present state" as a natural, undeveloped area; the deed references aerial photographs documenting the 1991 condition (vegetation ≤ ~3 feet).
- Over subsequent years the accreting land in front of petitioners thickened with taller vegetation and trees, creating wildlife habitat and blocking ocean views.
- Petitioners, as third‑party beneficiaries of the 1991 deed, sued claiming the deed requires the Town to maintain vegetation at the 1991 condition (low shrubs); the Town contends the deed grants it broad discretion, including allowing unchecked growth.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Town; the court of appeals affirmed. The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding the deed ambiguous on maintenance obligations and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1991 deed requires the Town to maintain the accreting land in the same vegetative condition as of 1991 | Deed preserves the land "in its present state" and references photos showing low vegetation; Town must keep vegetation at 1991 heights (≈3 ft) | Deed does not fix vegetation height and grants the Town authority to trim or not trim as it sees fit | The deed is ambiguous as to maintenance obligations; not resolvable on summary judgment |
| Whether the deed grants the Town "unrestricted authority" to allow unchecked vegetation growth | Limits to preserving natural character imply restrictions on allowing tall trees and dense growth | Claimed language gives the Town broad discretion to trim or allow growth for its purposes | The Town’s claimed unfettered discretion is not dispositive; deed contains specified purposes for trimming, so scope is ambiguous |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Genuine issues of material fact exist about deed intent and scope; summary judgment improper | If deed were unambiguous in Town’s favor, summary judgment would be proper | Court held disputed, material issues of fact preclude summary judgment and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116 (S.C. 2011) (summary judgment standard under Rule 56)
- S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617 (S.C. 2001) (a deed is ambiguous if reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation)
- K & A Acquis. Grp., L.L.C. v. Island Pointe, L.L.C., 383 S.C. 563 (S.C. 2009) (deed must be construed to effectuate grantor's intent and read as a whole)
- Williams v. Teran, Inc., 266 S.C. 55 (S.C. 1976) (when deed ambiguous, court may consider surrounding circumstances)
- Bluestein v. Town of Sullivan's Island, 424 S.C. 362 (Ct. App. 2018) (court of appeals had affirmed trial court's summary judgment for the Town)