744 S.E.2d 580
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Simmons owns two parcels in Charleston County (TMS 283-00-00-4981 and 282-00-00-135) separated by Kitford Road.
- 1956 Berkeley Electric easement (70-75 feet wide) covers transmission lines and related fixtures on parcel -498, crossing NE corner.
- 1972 Brown granted Berkeley Electric another easement to place and maintain lines along abutting streets and across -498, expanding cross rights.
- St. John’s Water installed a water main along Kitford Road in 1977-1978, with portion under -498; meters and taps revealed by Simmons in 2003; Simmons well-watered property.
- Simmons sued for trespass and unjust enrichment; Berkeley Electric and St. John’s Water moved for summary judgment arguing easements in favor.
- Master-in-equity granted Berkeley Electric express easement and, finding no exceedance, a prescriptive easement; for St. John’s Water, found express easement (later reversed) and prescriptive easement for the water main.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Berkeley Electric had an express easement and its scope | Simmons contends scope disputed and not properly raised. | Berkeley Electric asserts express easement and unchanged scope over time. | Affirmed: Berkeley Electric had express easement and did not exceed its scope. |
| Whether Berkeley Electric established a prescriptive easement | Simmons argues lack of justifiable right and conflicting evidence. | Berkeley Electric shows twenty-year continuous use and open, adverse use. | Affirmed: prescriptive easement established for current lines. |
| Whether St. John’s Water had an express easement to cross -498/-135 | Simmons argues no express easement proven; landowner must grant. | St. John’s Water argued for express easement as granted or implied. | Reversed: Master erred in finding St. John’s Water had an express easement. |
| Whether St. John’s Water had a prescriptive easement | Simmons contends no justifiable right or overt use established. | St. John’s Water shows twenty-year continuous use under claim of right. | Partially affirmed: prescriptive easement for the water main established; remaining lines unresolved as genuine issues of fact. |
| What is the overall disposition and remedy | Simmons seeks dismissal of easements affecting property values and use. | Each utility should prevail where appropriate by express or prescriptive easement. | Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for damages handling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Snyder, 396 S.C. 564 (Ct.App. 2012) (elements for prescriptive easement outlined)
- Binkley v. Rabon Creek Watershed Conservation Dist., 348 S.C. 58 (Ct.App. 2001) (scope of easement not always strictly bounded by metes and bounds)
- Plott v. Justin Enters., 374 S.C. 504 (Ct.App. 2007) (intent of the grant determines easement scope)
- Loftis v. S.C. Elec. & Gas Co., 361 S.C. 434 (Ct.App. 2004) (claim of right can suffice for prescriptive easement)
- Jones v. Daley, 363 S.C. 310 (Ct.App. 2005) (adverse use or justifiable claim of right can establish prescriptive rights)
- Springob v. Farrar, 334 S.C. 585 (Ct.App. 1999) (interpretation of easement grants and purposes)
- Seabrook Island Prop. Owners’ Ass’n v. Berger, 365 S.C. 234 (Ct.App. 2005) (evidence admissibility and discretion at summary judgment)
- Lanham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., 349 S.C. 356 (2002) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Epstein v. Coastal Timber Co., 393 S.C. 276 (2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- David v. McLeod Reg’l Med. Ctr., 367 S.C. 242 (Ct. 2006) (favorable view of evidence in triable issues)