Timberlake Plantation Co. v. County of Lexington

Decision Date22 March 1993
Docket NumberNo. 23861,23861
Citation314 S.C. 556,431 S.E.2d 573
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesTIMBERLAKE PLANTATION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF LEXINGTON, South Carolina, Columbia Cable T.V. Company, Inc., and Star Cable Associates, Defendants, of whom Columbia Cable T.V. Company, Inc. is Respondent, and Star Cable Associates is Petitioner. . Heard

Nina Nelson Smith, Julie Jeffords Moose, and C. Mitchell Brown, all of Nelson, Mullins, Riley, and Scarborough, Columbia, and

Leonard J. Marisco, of Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for petitioner.

Frank R. Ellerbe, III, J. Kershaw Spong, and D. Reece Williams, all of Robinson, McFadden & Moore, P.C., Columbia, for respondent.

Michael B. McKeithen, pro-se.

Jeff M. Anderson, of Bouknight, Nicholson, Davis, Frawley, and Anderson, Lexington, for County of Lexington.

HARWELL, Chief Justice:

This is a declaratory judgment action in which the Court of Appeals held that a cable television company's contract to become the exclusive provider of cable service to a residential development effectively created a monopoly, thereby inhibiting competition in violation of section 601 of the Federal Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 521 (1991). Timberlake Plantation Co. v. County of Lexington, --- S.C. ----, 415 S.E.2d 824 (Ct.App.1992). We granted certiorari and affirm as modified.

I. FACTS

Timberlake Plantation Company (Timberlake) is the developer of Timberlake Plantation, a residential community located on Lake Murray in Lexington County. In late 1986 or early 1987, Joseph Phillips (Phillips), Timberlake's vice president of development, contacted several cable television companies, including Columbia Cable T.V. Company (Columbia) and Star Cable Associates (Star), for the purpose of obtaining cable service for Timberlake Plantation. On May 4, 1987, after Columbia declined to provide service, Timberlake and Star entered into an agreement whereby Star would provide cable service to Timberlake Plantation. Paragraph two of the agreement provides:

Exclusive. Owner [Timberlake Plantation Company] agrees that he will not allow any company or person, other than SCA [Star], to supply CATV or SMATV service at the Property and to install wires or equipment for the terms of this Agreement. Owner agrees that he will not use or permit the Property to be used in any manner which could interfere with SCA's intended use of the property, that is, for the transmission and/or reception of television and other electrical signals....

In August 1988, Timberlake filed a final plat with the Lexington County Register of Mesne Conveyance that dedicated certain roads within Timberlake Plantation for public maintenance. The plat contains the following written statement signed by Phillips:

I hereby certify that I am a Vice President of Timberlake Plantation Company ... and that Timberlake Plantation Company adopts this plan of subdivision with its free consent, establishes easements and rights-of-way as noted, and dedicates all roads and associated storm drainage for public maintenance.... Furthermore, Timberlake Plantation Company, as owner of the property shown and described hereon, reserves unto itself certain rights as to any encroachment into the established easements and rights-of-way above. Any such encroachment of easements and rights-of-way will require prior written recorded approval of Timberlake Plantation Company or its assignee, Timberlake Plantation Property Owners' Association, Inc. (Emphasis added).

In late 1988, Columbia obtained encroachment permits from Lexington County to lay cable along the public rights-of-way within Timberlake Plantation. Star asserted that Timberlake was required to exclude Columbia from Timberlake Plantation pursuant to their agreement that Star would be Timberlake's exclusive provider of cable service. Timberlake filed this declaratory judgment action to resolve the dispute.

The trial judge permanently enjoined Columbia from entering Timberlake Plantation for the purpose of providing cable service. This ruling was based on the trial judge's finding that the limited dedication of roads and drainage systems "for maintenance only" did not create public easements that Lexington County had authority to authorize a third party to use, enter upon, or occupy. Columbia appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Star-Timberlake agreement was inconsistent with the Federal Communications Policy Act's goal of encouraging competition.

II. DISCUSSION

Star contends that section 601 of the Federal Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 521 (1991), authorizes cable franchises to install their equipment in public easements and rights-of-way only. According to Star, the Court of Appeals erred in relying on section 601 because there are no public easements in Timberlake Plantation. We find that the dedicated roads within Timberlake Plantation are public easements and, therefore, need not reach Star's assertion that section 601 does not authorize access to private easements.

Star argues that the dedication of roadways within Timberlake Plantation was not a complete and unequivocal dedication because Timberlake purported to reserve the right to control the use of all easements and rights-of-way. To support this proposition, Star points out that public dedications for a limited purpose are permissible, and that where the dedicator's intended use of the property is clearly and specifically expressed, no deviation from such use may be permitted, no matter how advantageous the changed use may be to the public. Knoerr v. Crews, 246 S.C. 174, 177, 143 S.E.2d 120, 121 (1965) (citing McCormac v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Town of Kingstree v. Gary W. Chapman, Jr., Terilyn J. Mcclary, Waccamaw Hous., Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 2013
    ...avenues. “The essence of a dedication is that it shall be for the use of the public at large.” Timberlake Plantation Co. v. Cnty. of Lexington, 314 S.C. 556, 560, 431 S.E.2d 573, 575 (1993). “A dedication must be made to the use of the public exclusively, and not merely to the use of the pu......
  • Mid-South Mgmt. v. Sherwood Dev.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2007
    ... ... the application of the alter-ego theory in Colleton County Taxpayers v. School District of Colleton County, 371 S.C ... ...
  • Johnson v. P'ship
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 5, 2016
    ...the South Carolina Court of Appeals decision in Timberlake Plantation Co. v. Cty. of Lexington, 415 S.E.2d 824 aff'd as modified, 431 S.E.2d 573 (S.C. 1993). It, nonetheless, notes that the Fourth Circuit rejected the Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the Cable Communications Policy Act ......
  • Davis v. Epting
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 1995
    ...involve public roads, which are proved dedicated by showing dedication and public acceptance. See Timberlake Plantation Co. v. County of Lexington, --- S.C. ----, 431 S.E.2d 573 (1993); Anderson v. Town of Hemingway, 269 S.C. 351, 237 S.E.2d 489 (1977). The parties agree that Virginia Lane ......
1 books & journal articles
  • PROPERTY LAW'S SEARCH FOR A PUBLIC.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 97 No. 5, June 2020
    • June 1, 2020
    ...under certain roads). (183.) Lynchburg Traction & Light Co., 128 S.E. at 609. (184.) Timberlake Plantation Co. v. Cty. Of Lexington, 431 S.E.2d 573, 575 (S.C. 1993); Ayres, 235 N.W. at 832; Kuehn v. Vill. of Mahtomedi, 292 N.W. 187, 191 (Minn. (185.) SINGER, supra note 22, at 148. At a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT