797 S.E.2d 387
S.C.2016Background
- Roosevelt Simmons owns two undeveloped Johns Island parcels (Tract 498 and Tract 135) separated by an abandoned railroad right-of-way.
- Berkeley Electric received express easements in 1956 (transmission lines) and 1972 (distribution lines over Tract 498).
- In 1977–78 Charleston County issued an encroachment permit and St. John’s Water installed an underground water main, later found crossing Simmons’ parcels.
- Simmons sued both utilities (trespass and unjust enrichment), seeking a declaration they had no property rights over his land.
- The master-in-equity granted summary judgment for both utilities (express and/or prescriptive easements); the Court of Appeals affirmed Berkeley Electric in full, affirmed St. John’s only on a prescriptive theory and rejected the encroachment-permit as an express easement.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court: affirmed summary judgment for Berkeley Electric; reversed summary judgment for St. John’s Water and remanded for further proceedings on whether the water main’s use was open and notorious for prescriptive purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether St. John’s has an express easement from the county encroachment permit | Simmons: county lacked authority to grant a property easement over private land; permit doesn’t create an express easement | St. John’s: the encroachment permit (and map) authorized the water main location | Court of Appeals rejected express easement; Supreme Court agreed county lacked authority and did not reinstate an express easement |
| Whether St. John’s established a prescriptive easement for the underground water main | Simmons: water main was hidden in woods; use was not open or notorious so prescriptive easement fails | St. John’s: engineering affidavit and long continuous use (since 1978) support prescriptive claim | Supreme Court: genuine fact issues exist as to openness and notoriety; reversed summary judgment and remanded for further factfinding |
| Whether Berkeley Electric exceeded the scope of its express easements | Simmons: distribution/transmission placement burdened servient estate and exceeded reasonable scope | Berkeley: lines fall within the 1956/1972 easements | Issue unpreserved (not raised in Court of Appeals rehearing); Supreme Court declined to decide on the merits |
| Whether Berkeley Electric acquired a prescriptive easement for distribution lines on Tract 135 | Simmons: evidence (plats, maps, affidavit) creates material fact disputes about line location/age | Berkeley: affidavits from long‑time supervisors establish visible line, continuous use for 20+ years | Supreme Court affirmed: affidavits provided evidentiary support for prescriptive easement; Simmons’ materials did not create a genuine dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Bundy v. Shirley, 412 S.C. 292 (2015) (burden to prove prescriptive easement elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- Williamson v. Abbott, 107 S.C. 397 (1917) (test for prescriptive rights: continuous use for 20 years and that the use was adverse)
- Darlington County v. Perkins, 269 S.C. 572 (1977) (articulating three-element test for prescriptive easement)
- Horry County v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364 (1993) (discussing ‘‘adverse or under claim of right’’ language)
- Hill v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 204 S.C. 83 (1943) (limitations on easement grants: use reasonably necessary and least burdensome)
- Jowers v. Hornsby, 292 S.C. 549 (1987) (existence of an easement is a question of fact in a law action)