Town of Hollywood v. Floyd
403 S.C. 466
S.C.2013Background
- Town filed suit seeking declaration that developers may not subdivide without Planning Commission approval and an injunction to stop subdivision.
- Developers counterclaimed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for equal protection and due process, plus state-law claims.
- Circuit court granted Town summary judgment on equitable/declaratory relief; denied summary judgment on counterclaims; jury awarded developers $450,000 on equal protection claim.
- Planning Commission instructed developers to prepare a two-phase plat; Edwards signed plats in two stages, purporting approval.
- Stop-work order issued; later Planning Commission required traffic study and other conditions; development located on Bryan Road near a dangerous curve with drainage concerns.
- On appeal, Court affirmed in part (declaratory/injunctive relief) and reversed in part (equal protection claim and attorney’s fees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable/declaratory relief proper? | Town: authorities vested in Planning Commission; Edwards lacked authority for >3 lots. | Developers: ordinances existed or were being recodified; authority disputed by Town. | Summary judgment proper for declaratory/injunctive relief. |
| Equal protection and fees viability? | Town: no disparate treatment; no similarity with comparators. | Developers: treated differently from similarly situated; due process overlap ignored; fees appropriate if prevailing party. | Directed verdict/JNOV reversed; equal protection success for developers undone; fees reversed. |
| Was Edwards’ approval ultra vires? | Edwards had authority under code to approve minor subdivisions; otherwise Planning Commission required. | Edwards acted within recodified ordinances; Town’s evidentiary issues unresolved. | Edwards could not approve final subdivision >3 lots; Town entitled to declaratory relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunes West Golf Club v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 401 S.C. 280 (S.C. 2013) (distinguishes rational basis in equal protection with legitimate differences in circumstances)
- Bibco Corp. v. City of Sumter, 332 S.C. 45 (S.C. 1998) (equal protection requires similarly situated individuals; rational basis review applied)
- Grant v. S.C. Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348 (S.C. 1995) (equal protection framework and rational basis standards)
- Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County, 394 S.C. 154 (S.C. 2011) (public-officer authority and misrepresentations of law generally not actionable)
- Quail Hill, L.L.C. v. County of Richland, 387 S.C. 223 (S.C. 2010) (summary judgment standard and deference to planning decisions)
- Elam v. S.C. Dept. of Transportation, 361 S.C. 9 (S.C. 2004) (preservation of issues for appellate review and Rule 59(e) considerations)