Bultman v. Barber, 21555
| Decision Date | 31 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21555,21555 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. F. BULTMAN, Jr., individually and as Executor of the Estate of W. F. Bultman, and Anna Birnie McDonald, Respondents, v. Arthur L. BARBER, R. W. Hills, Jr., Robert H. O'Donnell, Anne L. Schneider asExecutrix of the Estate of Cecil W. Schneider, and James A. Wilder, Appellants. |
Fred G. Scott, Jr., North Charleston, for appellants.
Blinzy L. Gore, Orangeburg, and Robinson, McFadden, Moore & Pope, Columbia, for respondents.
This action involves a dispute over ownership of property located at Magnolia Beach, a tract of land opposite Pawleys Island. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs-respondents alleged that the defendants-appellants are trespassers on a portion of their beach. They sought to bar any claims the defendants might assert to the land, confirm their own title, have the defendants enjoined from possessing the land and recover damages for the rental value of the land occupied by the defendants. The defendants in turn sought to have their title to the disputed parcel confirmed and to have the plaintiffs enjoined from interfering with their possession.
At the conclusion of all evidence at the trial, counsel for the plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict on the basis that: (1) the defendants were barred from asserting title since their predecessors in title had allegedly lost any interest in the land by virtue of a prior decree of partition and sale of the property; (2) notwithstanding the applicability of res judicata, the defendants had failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a reasonable claim of paramount title.
The trial judge granted the motion, sustaining both grounds. The defendants-appellants contend that the trial judge improperly weighed the evidence and also erred by finding that the prior partition suit operated to bar their adverse claim. While we agree that a duly instituted partition action (see Sections 15-61-10, et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976)) cannot be bootstrapped into an adverse claims action (see Sections 15-67-10, et seq., of the Code) absent compliance with all the statutory provisions applicable to the latter, we nonetheless must affirm the trial judge since the defendants have proven no basis to claim a paramount interest in the parcel of land at issue.
In reviewing a directed verdict, we will view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the granted motion. Collins Cadillac, Inc. v. Bigelow-Sanford, Inc., 279 S.E.2d 611 (S.C.1981). However, this does not give the Court license to ignore facts unfavorable to that party. In essence, we must determine whether a verdict for a party opposing the motion would be reasonably possible under the facts as liberally construed in his favor. Having done this, we find that the defendants have established no reasonable basis to claim an interest in Magnolia Beach.
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century a James Smalls owned some 1,183 acres of land which in part abutted the Atlantic Ocean. He apparently conveyed out at least 700 acres in 24 recorded deeds. These small parcels had only general descriptions which merely copied the bounds of the larger tract out of which they were conveyed. Thus, the parcels were described as being bound by the ocean even though the aggregate of land deeded out would far exceed the actual amount of beach acreage. An early map of the Smalls property in fact certifies that, "The seashore, creek and marsh land is to be the common property of the owners of the different lots."
During the 1930's interested parties began purchasing the residue-estate interests of various heirs of James Smalls. In 1938, a partition action relative to Magnolia Beach was instituted and this action culminated in the sale of the beach property in 1943 for $7,025. The successful bidders failed to make payment. Finally, in 1958 the partition action was reinstituted by certain parties with interests in the proceeds. The end result of this second phase of the partition action was that the property was ordered resold. W. F. Bultman, W. F. Bultman, Jr. and Anna Birnie McDonald placed the successful bid of $50,000 for the property. In 1960, the Clerk of Court for Georgetown County issued a deed, upon payment, for property described as:
"All that tract or parcel of land situate in Township # 7, County of Georgetown, State of South Carolina, known as Magnolia Beach, constituting a part of Midway Seashore Plantation, containing 20 acres, more or less, bounded on the Northeast by lands of Dr. Henry Norris; Southeast by the Atlantic Ocean; Southwest by a creek separating said Magnolia Beach from Pawleys Island; Northwest by lands of Birnie, Bultman and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers
...for a party opposing the motion would be reasonably possible under the facts as liberally construed in his favor. Bultman v. Barber, 277 S.C. 5, 7, 281 S.E.2d 791, 792 (1981). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one reasonable inference, the case should be submitted to the jury. Que......
-
Hurd v. Williamsburg County, 3614.
...possible under the facts as liberally construed in his favor. Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 485 S.E.2d 903 (1997); Bultman v. Barber, 277 S.C. 5, 281 S.E.2d 791 (1981). When the evidence yields only one inference, a directed verdict in favor of the moving party is proper. Sims v. Giles,......
-
Goodwin v. Kennedy
...for a party opposing the motion would be reasonably possible under the facts as liberally construed in his favor." Bultman v. Barber, 277 S.C. 5, 7, 281 S.E.2d 791, 792 (1981). We find the trial judge did not err in ruling that whether the statements were defamatory is a question for the ju......
-
Jones v. General Elec. Co.
...a verdict for the opposing party would be reasonably possible under the facts as liberally construed in his favor. Bultman v. Barber, 277 S.C. 5, 281 S.E.2d 791 (1981). See also Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 485 S.E.2d 903 (1997) (in reviewing a directed verdict, the appellate court mus......