Butler v. Sea Pines Plantation Co., 0197
| Decision Date | 22 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0197,0197 |
| Citation | 317 S.E.2d 464,282 S.C. 113 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Wallace E. BUTLER, Jr., Appellant, v. SEA PINES PLANTATION COMPANY, Sea Pines Company, The Seabrook of Hilton Head, Inc., Sea Pines Montessori School, Inc., Plantation Cablevision, Inc., Sea Cabin Corporation, R.P. Crum, R.S. Crum, Virginia H. Crum, D.P. Schrader, D.L. Schrader, Roberta Nissi, as Trustee, Molly Kagen, Carl J. Kaimer, William Hunter, Sally Hunter, I. William Littell, and Teacor, Inc., d/b/a C and S Investment South, and Robert L. Kosnoski, Gerald Kosnoski, Carrol D. Simplins, Hulette C. Smith, Joseph B. Fraser, Jr., Piney Coking Coal Land Company, McCreery Coal Land Co., and Edward M. Payne, III, d/b/a Hilton Head Land Associates, and Les Austin and Sea Pines Plantation Co., Inc., d/b/a Austin Development Associates, and William B. Sherer, Jr., Roger Cawley, Evonne G. Cawley, and Opal S. Duke, d/b/a Goolagong's, Defendants, of whom Sea Pines Plantation Company, Sea Pines Company, The Seabrook of Hilton Head, Inc., Sea Pines Montessori School, Inc., Outdoor Recreation Services, Inc., and Les Austin and Sea Pines Plantation Co., Inc., d/b/a Austin Development Associates, are the remaining, Respondents. . Heard |
McKay & Mullen, Hilton Head Island, for appellant.
Charles A. Scarminach, Hilton Head Island, Boyd, Knowlton, Tate & Finlay and James B. Richardson of Ham & Richardson, Columbia, Dowling, Sanders, Dukes, Novit & Svalina, Beaufort, for respondents.
Appellant Wallace E. Butler, Jr., sued to enjoin the development of a tract of land on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Respondent Sea Pines Plantation Company holds title to a portion of the tract. Respondent Sea Pines Company owns the common stock of Sea Pines Plantation Company. The remaining respondents each own other portions of the tract. The trial judge dismissed the action. We affirm.
In 1961, Butler purchased a lot within Sea Pines Plantation, a residential subdivision on Hilton Head Island, from Sea Pines Plantation Company (Sea Pines). 1 He claims that as a result of certain unrecorded documents and alleged promises and representations made to him in connection with his purchase, he acquired an easement or equitable servitude 2 in a 914-acre tract within the subdivision which now entitles him to an injunction restricting its use to that of a "forest preserve." In support of his claim, Butler relies on a "Master Plan" or map published by Sea Pines which purported to show future development of the subdivision. He further relies on certain promotional literature given to him by Sea Pines and a document entitled "Basic Data on Sea Pines Development" describing the concept and scheme for future development.
Finally, Butler relies on conversations which he had with the president of Sea Pines in which it was allegedly represented to him that the 914-acre tract would be maintained free of development as a "wildlife or forest preserve."
Butler purchased his lot by a contract of sale to which were attached (1) the restrictions applicable to the lot, (2) a plat of the street on which the lot was located and (3) the "Basic Data" document. 3
The sales contract contained the following language:
The Sea Pines Plantation Company, as Seller, makes no pledges, covenants or commitments in regard to the development of the Sea Pines Plantation Area except as stated in this Contract, the recorded covenants and the document entitled "Basic Data on the Sea Pines Development", dated ________, a copy of which has been provided Buyer.
The Basic Data document referred to included the following provisions:
The master plans for the development of Sea Pines Plantation and the land use controls incorporated into all deeds are the outgrowth of over five years of research and planning ....
The basic concepts and ideas for the development which were formulated during this research, and which were implemented in the designs, are three-fold:
(1) All land is to be sold subject to complete deed restrictions to assure, with thorough enforcement by the resident ownership-management, that the homes and other structures constructed within Sea Pines boundaries are attractive in appearance and appropriate to their neighborhoods;
(2) The development was planned (and was underway on a massive scale by January 1960) of a full range of recreational, sporting and cultural facilities for year round residents and vacationers during the four seasons of the year, and
(3) maintenance of at least two square miles of Sea Pines in an undeveloped condition, free of homes and any other buildings, and managed in a way designed to preserve the wildlife and the natural beauty of the area....
The master land use plan and preliminary architectural plans for the clubs and similar structures will be reviewed and modified from time to time in accordance with suggestions of residents and the continuing research and design program of the company. They are guides, not unchangeable designs, and will be implemented within the overall pattern originally established, in a way responsive to the developing needs of the community .... (Emphasis added.)
As indicated, master plans were subject to modification. The "Basic Data" document was itself revised almost annually while in use by the company. Neither the "Master Plan" nor the "Basic Data" document applicable at the time of Butler's purchase were recorded or referenced in his deed. Butler's general warranty deed, recorded in Beaufort County states:
... subject, however, to the rights, restrictions, conditions, etc. which constitute covenants running with the premises, all as set out or referred to and made applicable above, and the option described hereinabove.
None of the covenants, conditions, etc., referred to in the deed contain restrictions on the tract now in question. Neither the deed nor sales contract referenced a master plan.
The record reveals Butler was employed by Sea Pines as either a salesman or sales manager from 1958 to 1967. As such, he was familiar with the various versions of master plans and data documents. He testified he sold property in Sea Pines Plantation by reference to master plans which were displayed in the sales office. These plans designated an area of the Plantation as a wildlife preserve. However, Butler also testified he was aware from the outset of Sea Pines' policy of flexibility in master planning, as evidenced by the following language from the letter which offered him employment:
The comments of visitors at the exhibits should be carefully noted and to the extent necessary plans and programs--plans and program policy revised to reflect consumer preferences. Ample opportunity should be provided to encourage visitors to sign up for any literature and brochures to be issued in connection with the public offering for property for sale in 1958. The exhibits should be so displayed that the text will not commit the company at this stage in a precise pattern of development leaving full flexibility for any program changes that may be necessary as a result of formation of a development syndicate and to take into the account new knowledge of consumer preferences. (Emphasis added.)
According to Butler, Charles Fraser, president of Sea Pines, made oral representations to him prior to his purchase that a specific contiguous two-square-mile tract (the property now in question) would be permanently set aside as a wildlife and forest preserve. 4 In addition, Butler testified that signs were posted around this tract indicating it was a wildlife preserve.
Butler further testified that as early as 1965 he was aware of development of property within the tract. 5 He was also aware that a proposed airstrip was designated within the tract. Butler testified he "commented" to some Sea Pines officials about possible violations of the master plan but lodged no formal or written complaints. He conceded he voiced no objections to some of the alleged violations. Butler admitted that during the mid-1960's he sold residential lots in the area he now claims as a preserve. As recently as 1978 he was involved in the sale of property within the tract.
Sea Pines admits it is contractually obligated to a two-square-mile commitment but contends the more than 1280 acres (two square miles) permanently restricted throughout the Plantation meets that obligation because there is no requirement the undeveloped land be a contiguous parcel. Fraser, president or chairman since 1957, testified Sea Pines' original acre-for-acre commitment language in a 1957 data document was later changed to a two-square-mile commitment, which in his opinion was approximately the same amount of property. Fraser also testified this commitment was being met in a series of steps involving various parcels of property. One of these was a 572-acre tract designated as Sea Pines Forest Preserve, with plat and covenants recorded in 1970 and revised in 1979 to increase the preserve to 605 acres.
Fraser further testified the two-square-mile commitment was incorporated into a contractually binding 1974 Property Owner's Agreement signed by a majority of the property owners, including Butler. In return for payment of higher assessments for community services, Sea Pines agreed, among other things, to irrevocably designate 1292 acres within the Plantation to be kept in an undeveloped condition free of homes and other structures. (Insufficient land had thus far been set aside to satisfy the two-square-mile commitment.) As a result of these agreements, a "Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions by Sea Pines Plantation Company, Inc." was recorded which designated the 1292 acres (including the 572-acre Sea Pines Forest Preserve) for use as conservancy and open space areas. According to testimony of Fraser and an employee in Sea Pines' land control department, the 1292-acre commitment has been far exceeded, with over 2,000...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowley v. Spivey
...records prepared for use at trial is admissible if the records themselves are properly in evidence. Butler v. Sea Pines Plantation Company, 282 S.C. 113, 317 S.E.2d 464 (S.C.App.1984). The Spiveys' final exception to the trial judge's evidentiary rulings concerns the testimony of a witness ......
-
Payne v. Holiday Towers, Inc.
...this court. D.A. Davis Construction Co., Inc. v. Palmetto Properties, Inc., 315 S.E.2d 370 (S.C.1984); see also Butler v. Sea Pines Plantation Co., 317 S.E.2d 464, (S.C.App.1984) (adverse rulings insufficient to establish bias or prejudice; such prejudice must clearly appear from the record......
-
In re T 2 Green, LLC, Bankruptcy No. 05-05781-W.
...covenants are strictly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of a free use of property. See Butler v. Sea Pines Plantation Co., 282 S.C. 113, 317 S.E.2d 464, 468 (S.C.Ct.App.1984). However, this rule of strict construction only applies where the parties have failed to state their agr......
-
State v. Thomason, 3666.
...when the facts first become known and, in any event, before the matter is submitted for decision." Butler v. Sea Pines Plantation Co., 282 S.C. 113, 122-123, 317 S.E.2d 464, 470 (Ct.App.1984). For an appellate court to review an issue, a contemporaneous objection at the trial level is requi......