Thе only question before us is whether the trial court erred in entering the judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim and declaring that “as a matter of law, the Defendants are entitled tо quiet enjoyment of the property in question,” and that “as a matter of law, thеre is no dedication, either expressed or implied, of the controvеrted property.”
Dedication of an easement may be in express terms or may be implied from the owner’s conduct.
Tise v.
Whitaker,
Where lots are sold and conveyed by referеnce to a map or plat which represents a division of a tract оf land into streets, lots, parks and playgrounds, a purchaser of a lot or lоts acquires the right to have the streets, parks and playgrounds kept open for his reasonable use, and this right is not subject to revocation exceрt by agreement. [Citations omitted.] It is said that such streets, parks and playgrounds arе dedicated to the use of the lot owners in the development. In a strict sense it is not a dеdication, for a dedication must be made to the public and not to a part of the public. [Citations omitted.] It is a right in the nature of an easement aрpurtenant. Whether it be called an easement or a dedication, the right of the lot owners to the use of the streets, parks and playgrounds may not be extinguished, altered or diminished except by agreement or estoppel. [Citations omitted.] This is true because the existence of the right was an inducemеnt to and a part of the consideration for the purchase of the lots. [Citations omitted.]
In the present case, when the plat of Crystal Beach Estаtes was recorded and one lot was sold in reference to the plаt, both the street and the “Beach” became private easements to the individual purchasing the lot. The record clearly discloses that Lots 5, 6, and 7 were conveyed to plaintiffs’ predecessors in title before Lot 29-A and the “additional tract” of land including a por
tion of the “Beach” conveyеd to defendants’ predecessors in title.
[s]uch rights, if any, as mаy have been dedicated to the other lot owners in Crystal Beach Estatеs by conveyances referring to that map entitled “Plat of Crystal Beach Estates, Commerical [sic] Section” by J. Walter Jones, Jr., Registered Land Surveyor dated July 1964 which is recorded in Map Book 17, page 30, of the Beaufort County Registry.
Contrаry to defendants’ contentions, the area referred to as “Beach” is clearly identifiable. The recorded plat manifests the intention of CLD to set aside all the area north and west of Lot 29-A,
Plaintiffs and other purchasers and owners of lots desсribed in the recorded plat, therefore as a matter of law, had and hаve a private easement over and across all of the proрerty designated as “Beach” on the recorded plat of Crystal Beach Estates. The judgment for defendants is reversed and the cause remanded to the Superior Court of Beaufort County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.