725 S.E.2d 676
S.C.2012Background
- In 1961 the State sued predecessors in interest of East Cherry Grove to establish title to tidelands in North Myrtle Beach.
- The 1963 consent order exempted land above mean high-water mark from the suit and described a survey and line of demarcation.
- The 1969 settlement incorporated quitclaim deeds dividing land by an agreed mean high-water mark, with specifics about canals and Nye Cut; the deed stated areas below the mark quitclaimed to the State and areas above to East Cherry Grove.
- The deeds and a 1969 court order incorporated the 1963 order but did not resolve ownership of canal bottoms in East Cherry Grove’s Land.
- Canals had been open to public use since construction, and the City of North Myrtle Beach joined the State in seeking title to canal bottoms.
- The jury found in favor of the State on three theories: quitclaims, public dedication, and trust for the public; the trial court denied directed verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1963 order conclusively established ownership under the quitclaims | East Cherry Grove: 1963 order unambiguously favored East Cherry Grove | State: 1963 order is not controlling due to settlement and ambiguity in deeds | No; 1963 order merged with the settlement and the quitclaims are ambiguous when read with all documents. |
| Whether the State is estopped from denying the 1963 order | East Cherry Grove asserts judicial estoppel due to the 1963 order | State contends estoppel does not apply given intervening documents and lack of definite position | No estoppel; 1963 order does not force ownership in East Cherry Grove and does not bar the State from asserting title. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84 (Ct.App.1989) (interpretation of judgments by reading entirety)
- Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81 (1976) (scope of review in cases at law tried to jury)
- Wigfall v. Fobbs, 295 S.C. 59 (1988) (standard for reviewing title and factual findings)
- Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354 (1991) (nature of declaratory judgment action; action at law for title)
- Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210 (2004) (judicial estoppel elements and application)
- Richardson v. Donald Hawkins Construction, Inc., 381 S.C. 347 (2009) (evidence and jury instruction considerations on admissibility)
- State v. Rabon, 275 S.C. 459 (1980) (judge’s charge must correctly state the law; error only if coercive)
- Hardin v. South Carolina Dept. of Transp., 371 S.C. 598 (2007) (takings principle; government action can effect no taking without deprivation)
- Smoak v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 281 S.C. 420 (1984) (two-issue rule limits questions on review)