735 S.E.2d 528
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Landowner seeks an order recognizing an easement across Railroad's right-of-way.
- Railroad right-of-way runs along Property's north and east boundary and extends to the Savannah River.
- Ownership of the underlying fee for the land beneath the right-of-way is unclear; parties concede Landowner does not own the underlying fee.
- Landowner used the access road beneath the trestle for visits, timber harvest, and building a cabin; public subdivision plans later arose.
- Pollard Lumber granted an adjacent easement for improving an ingress/egress road; the Pollard easement connects with Landowner's access.
- In 2004 Landowner sought a written easement from Railroad to run a water line and later pursued this action after planning commissions indicated a written easement was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easement by equitable estoppel validity | Landowner relies on Railroad's silence and inaction. | Railroad did not mislead or induce reliance; no prejudicial change in position. | Railroad summary judgment upheld on estoppel claim. |
| Prescriptive easement viability | Use was adverse or under a claim of right for 20 years. | Use was permissive; no hostile assertion of a right. | Railroad summary judgment affirmed on prescriptive easement. |
| Laches applicability | Railroad delay caused Landowner prejudice. | No inconsistent conduct or prejudicial delay by Railroad. | Railroad summary judgment affirmed on laches. |
| Easement by necessity | Necessity to access landlocked tract via navigable water. | Necessity existed at severance in 1878; water access reasonable then. | Railroad summary judgment affirmed on easement by necessity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlanta & Charlotte Air-Line Ry. Co. v. Limestone-Globe Land Co., 109 S.C. 444 ((1918)) (owner of fee may cross as not interfering with railroad use; necessity exists at severance)
- Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 300 S.C. 369 ((Ct.App.1989)) (railroad purposes include anything reasonably necessary for operation; cannot destroy railroad's use)
- Faulkenberry v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 349 S.C. 318 ((2002)) (owner may cross but cannot interfere with railroad's use of easement)