776 S.E.2d 96
S.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Adjoining landowners Wilbur L. Judy, Sr. (Judy property) and John A. Howell, Jr. (Howell property) had a paved/earthen dike ("dike road") created between ponds after I-95 construction; both used and maintained the dike for years.
- After John Howell died, his wife Marion blocked vehicular access from the Howell property to the Judy property; the Judy family later accessed the Judy property via a narrow railroad path.
- Roy Judy (son) had surveys prepared in the 1990s; one plat (Ashley Plat) placed the dike fully on the Judy property, while a later Bass Plat divided the dike roughly down the middle. Competing plats relied on older plats (1867 Plat, F.A. Moorer Plat) with measurement inconsistencies.
- The Howells (heirs of Marion) sued Betty Judy seeking declaratory judgment/quiet title placing the boundary in the center of the dike (or as shown on an attached plat) and, alternatively, an easement; Betty denied their claims and contested surveys.
- At trial, evidence included testimony about long‑standing mutual use and maintenance of the dike, differing expert surveys, and prior informal agreements; the trial court located the boundary in the middle of the dike and granted reciprocal easements for ingress/egress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Betty Judy) | Defendant's Argument (Howells) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper basis to fix boundary | Trial court ignored plats/surveys showing boundary at locations indicated on older plats (Ashley, F.A. Moorer, Highway maps) | Boundary should be set in middle of dike (as practical dividing line) based on use and competing survey evidence | Held for Howells — trial court reasonably found middle of dike was appropriate |
| Whether parties acquiesced to dike as boundary | Judy: no evidence of mutual recognition; plats control | Howells: long‑term mutual use/maintenance and conduct showed acquiescence to dike as boundary | Held for Howells — acquiescence found; factual determination supported by evidence |
| Admissibility/weight of surveyor testimony | Judy: Ashley Plat and field work support Judy position | Howells: Bass and other survey work support dividing line; surveys conflict and have imperfections | Held: trial court credited parties' conduct over conflicting surveys; survey disagreements were factual credibility issues |
| Whether trial court's boundary was arbitrary | Judy: court’s line arbitrary given documentary plats | Howells: court relied on evidence of use and testimony; not arbitrary | Held: not arbitrary — appellate court defers to trial court factfinding when evidence supports it |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirkland v. Gross, 286 S.C. 193, 332 S.E.2d 546 (recognition/acquiescence can establish boundary)
- McClintic v. Davis, 228 S.C. 378, 90 S.E.2d 364 (silence and acquiescence estop later claims)
- Gardner v. Mozingo, 293 S.C. 23, 358 S.E.2d 390 (mutual recognition of line over time precludes later contrary claim)
- Knox v. Bogan, 322 S.C. 64, 472 S.E.2d 43 (acquiescence may establish new boundary; usual time follows statute of limitations but shorter periods may suffice)
- Coker v. Cummings, 381 S.C. 45, 671 S.E.2d 383 (plat evidence may be insufficient where long‑term possession upholds an asserted boundary)
- Clements v. Young, 310 S.C. 73, 425 S.E.2d 63 (artificially compiled/tie lines are unacceptable as true boundaries where owners did not recognize them)