Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County
394 S.C. 154
S.C.2011Background
- Carolina Chloride purchased 7.67 acres on Killian Road in Richland County in 1996 to store and distribute calcium chloride, requiring M-2 zoning.
- Realtor Ott told the County the IBM property was M-2; no-one checked the Official Zoning Map or ordinances before purchase.
- Zoning confusion arose when Morgan sought a permit; Brown, the Zoning Administrator, opined the property should be M-2 and said the tax map had been amended, though no official map/ordinance was produced.
- Carolina Chloride improved the property and operated under presumed M-2 during subsequent years; County employees indicated M-2 on permits.
- In 2003, Hicks advised the property was RU, not M-2, and suggested applying to rezone to M-2; County Council rezoned to M-2 later that year.
- Carolina Chloride alleged various civil claims, including negligence and negligent misrepresentation, asserting the County misadvised on the property's legal zoning and caused a lost sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence and negligent misrepresentation viability | Carolina Chloride claims County misinformed and failed to maintain records, breaching duty and causing damages. | Zoning is a matter of law; statements on law are not actionable and public records could have been consulted. | Directed verdict for County proper; no liability for misstatements of law. |
| Inverse condemnation viability | Hicks's 2003 letter and zoning reversal constitute an affirmative act damaging property value. | No regulatory taking; delays and misstatements did not amount to a taking. | Inverse condemnation claim barred as a matter of law; no taking. |
| Admissibility of Brown deposition | Brown's deposition should be admitted; he was County-affiliated and relevant. | Rule 32(a)(2) excludes deposition of former officer unless conditions met; Brown did not qualify. | Court of Appeals' exclusion of Brown's deposition affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quail Hill, L.L.C. v. County of Richland, 387 S.C. 223 (2010) (misrepresentation of law not actionable; reliance on records insufficient)
- Byrd v. City of Hartsville, 365 S.C. 650 (2005) (delay in zoning actions alone not a taking; investment-backed expectations matter)
- Northernaire Productions, Inc. v. Crow Wing County, 309 Minn. 386 (1976) (misrepresentation of legal requirements not actionable; public policy considerations)
- AMA Mgmt. Corp. v. Strasburger, 309 S.C. 213 (Ct. App. 1992) (duty of care; reliance on representations of law not actionable)
- WRB Ltd. P'ship v. County of Lexington, 369 S.C. 30 (2006) (affirmative act required for regulatory taking; not satisfied here)
- Cobb v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 365 S.C. 360 (2005) (regulatory delay and taking framework in inverse condemnation context)