Woodruff Road SC v. SC Greenville Hwy 146
2017-UP-002
S.C. Ct. App.Jan 4, 2017Background
- Woodruff Road SC, LLC (Appellant) owns Tract B; SC Greenville Hwy 146, LLC (Respondent) owns Tract A.
- A written easement grants Tracts A and B a common right of way for ingress and egress across Tract B.
- Respondent operates a commercial tenant with a drive‑thru that uses part of the easement: invitees enter the easement, stop to order, then exit.
- Appellant sued for a declaratory judgment seeking to limit the easement’s scope, arguing the drive‑thru imposes a new or increased burden on Tract B.
- The circuit court allowed Respondent’s use; the Court of Appeals heard the appeal and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether operating a drive‑thru window within the easement exceeds the easement’s grant of a common right of way for ingress and egress | The drive‑thru materially increases the burden on Tract B and is not within mere ingress/egress | Drive‑thru patrons simply enter, pause to order, then exit — activity falls within ingress and egress and does not create a new burden | The Court affirmed: drive‑thru use fits within ingress/egress and does not unreasonably impair Appellant’s reserved right of way |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemson Univ. v. First Provident Corp., 260 S.C. 640 (1973) (owner of an easement cannot materially increase the servient estate’s burden)
- Ballington v. Paxton, 327 S.C. 372 (Ct. App. 1997) (a right of way entitles pass and repass in a reasonable manner; does not guarantee a way without obstruction)
- Watson v. Hoke, 73 S.C. 361 (1906) (definition of the right to pass and repass)
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598 (1999) (appellate courts need not address remaining issues when a prior issue is dispositive)