707 S.E.2d 402
S.C.2011Background
- Consolidated direct appeals address annexation by 100% petition method under S.C. Code § 5-3-150(3).
- Town of Yemassee annexed Binden Plantation, marshlands, and other areas including a strip near Castle Hill Farms; petition signed only by Binden Plantation, Castle Hill Farms, and Raymond P. Basso; State did not sign.
- Annexation contingent on a development agreement allowing various developments.
- Private Party Appellants Campbell, Kinsey, Yisrael, and Coastal Conservation League challenged the annexation in circuit court.
- State moved to intervene and sought substitution as real party in interest; circuit court denied; summary judgment granted for Respondents.
- Court ultimately held: Private Party Appellants lack standing; State had standing but its intervention motions untimely; State’s signature required for 100% annexation; decision affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Private Party Appellants have standing to challenge 100% annexation? | Yisrael argues 100% not valid since State owns marshland. | Campbell/Kinsey rely on 75% framework or public trust claims. | Private Party Appellants lack standing. |
| Does the State have standing to challenge 100% annexation where it is presumptive owner of marshlands? | State should be able to challenge as owner of real estate in area. | State status not recognized for 100% petition unless it signs. | State has standing but intervention motions untimely. |
| Is the State's signature on the 100% petition required to consummate annexation? | State signature required where State owns property; 5-3-150(3) plain meaning requires all real estate owners to sign. | State signature not required under circuit court reading (incorrect). | State's signature is required on 100% petition. |
| Are the State's motions to intervene or be substituted timely under § 5-3-270? | If timely, relate back; discovery rule may apply due to lack of notice. | Limitations set by statute; motions untimely. | Motions untimely; court so held, though Part on relation back disputed. |
| Should the circuit court have allowed intervention despite lack of standing of the private plaintiffs? | Intervention could cure jurisdictional questions and relate back. | Lack of standing defeats real-party-in-interest status; no relate-back. | Court declined to allow intervention as untimely; affirmed dismissal of private challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Andrews Pub. Serv. Dist. v. City of Charleston, 349 S.C. 602 (2002) (standing to challenge 100% annexation limited to infringement of proprietary interests or statutory rights)
- Quinn v. City of Columbia, 303 S.C. 405 (1991) (overruled; caution against using merits to determine standing)
- Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408 (1988) (plain meaning of statutory terms in construction)
- State ex rel. Condon v. City of Columbia, 339 S.C. 8 (2000) (statutory limitations and annexation challenges)
- McQueen v. S.C. Coastal Council, 354 S.C. 142 (2003) (State holds presumptive title to marshlands)
- State v. Holston Land Co., 272 S.C. 65 (1978) (marshlands held in trust for citizens)