Cabiness v. Town of James Island
393 S.C. 176
S.C.2011Background
- Town of James Island sought to incorporate a municipality on James Island, excluding areas already annexed by Folly Beach and Charleston.
- Previous attempts at incorporation were invalidated for lack of contiguity under narrower definitions; later amendments addressed contiguity via publicly-owned property.
- Town submitted a Petition describing approximate island boundaries, plus a map and a list of TMS numbers with inconsistencies and omissions across these materials.
- Charleston annexations during petition pendency created uncertainty about which properties would be included, complicating contiguity and boundary clarity.
- The Secretary certified a local election in Town’s favor, but appellants challenged the petition and its sufficiency under §5-1-24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Town's Petition satisfy §5-1-24(A)(1)-(2)? | Appellants contend petition lacked precise, certain boundaries and failed required disclosures. | Town argues substantial compliance; variances acceptable if fairly apprises public of property involved. | Petition not sufficient under §5-1-24; reversal remanding for judgment for Appellants. |
| Is Act 77 contiguity contrived special legislation? | Appellants claim Act 77 creates unconstitutional special treatment of incorporators. | Town argues Act 77 applies generally to incorporators; annexation differs in class and is not targeted. | Act 77 constitutional; contiguity provisions general in operation. |
| Does §5-1-30(A)(4) contiguity permit using publicly-owned property to establish contiguity? | Appellants contend using publicly-owned property to affirm contiguity is improper; ‘but for’ language interpreted strictly. | Town urges broader use of publicly-owned property to connect areas seeking incorporation. | Court adheres to plain language, rejects affirmative creation of contiguity via publicly-owned property; but requires eliminating publicly-owned property for contiguity test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glaze v. Grooms, 324 S.C. 249 (1996) (invalidated first attempted boundary contiguity in town incorporation)
- Kizer v. Clark, 360 S.C. 86 (2004) (contiguity definitions challenged as unconstitutional special legislation)
- People ex rel. Village of Worth v. Ihde, 23 Ill. 2d 63 (1961) (descriptions of municipal boundaries evaluated for sufficiency when paired with a map)
- In re Incorporation of Town of Port Washington as a Village, 248 Wis. 2d 893 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (boundary descriptions sufficient when map and text fairly apprise the public)
- Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. City of Columbia, 252 S.C. 55 (1969) (classification and rational-basis approach to statutes)
- Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office, 381 S.C. 357 (2009) (absurdity exception to statutory construction remains narrow)
- Ventures S.C., LLC v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 378 S.C. 5 (2008) (statutory construction principles and context)
- Gov't Empl. Ins. Co. v. Draine, 389 S.C. 586 (Ct. App. 2010) (statutory terms given consistent meaning across sections)