Charleston Dev. Co. v. Alami
| Decision Date | 23 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2018-001766,Opinion No. 5826 |
| Citation | 433 S.C. 533,860 S.E.2d 687 |
| Parties | CHARLESTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, Charleston Housing Company, LLC and NotSo Hostel, LLC, Appellants, v. Younesse ALAMI, Simon M. Adell, Matthew Anderson, Matthew Asher, Daniel Baker, Marie Baker, Matthew and Christina Bare, Andre Bauer, Peter Bierce, Brandon Blount, Barbara Brass, Richard T. Brewer, Sigrid Anne Eilertson, Reginald P. Brown, IV, Mary Cahill, Ryan Cockrell, Kevin and Virginia Conlon, Anne Marie Crevar, Christina Cross, Darryl J. Damico, Labar Daniel, Stephen Darwak, Lindsay Davenport, Mary Dickerson, Maxwell Streeter, Kathleen Dougherty, David Dressman, Anna Dressman, Michael Elder, Christopher Scott Farley, Michele Ghastin, Timnah Giller, Virginia Geller, Ryan Gilreath, Sonya Gilreath, Kimberly Glenn, Shaun Halsor, Josephine Rex, Arthur Halvorson, Andrew Halvorson, Linda Hancock, Laura Hyatt, Mike Hartel, Nathan Herring, James Hicks, Jr., Laurie Hicks, Preston G. Hipp, Colin Jones, Matthew F. Jones, Robert C. Jones, Robin Joseph, Molly Keeler, John Kenny, Mandi Walters, Abigail King, Aaron Kless, Laurie Kramer, Robert Kramer, Allison Kreutzer, Benjamin Levitt, Richard Levitt, Jesse Lutz, Nikou Manouchehri, Thomas Naselaris, Zoe Naselaris, Beau O'Steen, Cori O'Steen, Lance Parr, Brandon Perdue, Amanda Lee Raymer, Hadassah Rothenberg, Daniel Ryan, Kimberly Bowlin, Kevin Schnittker, Ginger Scofield, Inderjit Singh, Avtar Singh, Alecia Stevens, Lee Stevens, Justin Swan, Merrick Teichman, John Van Vlack, Jr., William Waterhouse, Jennifer Waterhouse, Anne Wohlfeil, Bryan Young, AJB Trust, Anthony & Jacqueline Bradley, Trustees, Hartshorn Family Trust, Helene Kenny/Bridget Kenny Revocable Trust, Wilhelmina M. Wieters Life Estate Childrens Trust, 33 Bogard Street LLC, 249 Cumming, LLC, 253 Coming Street LLC, 259 East Bay LLC, 259 East Bay 10 B LLC, 272 D Coming St. LLC, Café International, Inc., Corner At Old Canton, LLC, Geer Interests LLC, Kit Properties LLC, Lambert-Weiss LLC, The Naws LLC, New Lease Capital LLC, One Henrietta LLC, Periwinkle Partners, LLC, Porch Properties LLC, Westbury Properties, LLC, and Westendorff Hardware LLC, Defendants, Of whom Younesse Alami, Simon M. Adell, Matthew Anderson, Matthew Asher, Andre Bauer, Peter Bierce, Brandon Blount, Reginald P. Brown, IV, Mary Cahill, Ryan Cockrell, Kevin and Virginia Conlon, Anne Marie Crevar, Darryl J. Damico, Stephen Darwak, Lindsay Davenport, Mary Dickerson, Maxwell Streeter, Kathleen Dougherty, David Dressman, Anna Dressman, Michael Elder, Christopher Scott Farley, Michele Ghastin, Ryan Gilreath, Sonya Gilreath, Kimberly Glenn, Shaun Halsor, Josephine Rex, Laura Hyatt, Nathan Herring, James Hicks, Jr., Laurie Hicks, Preston G. Hipp, Colin Jones, Matthew F. Jones, Robert C. Jones, Robin Joseph, Molly Keeler, John Kenny, Abigail King, Aaron Kless, Laurie Kramer, Robert Kramer, Allison Kreutzer, Jesse Lutz, Thomas Naselaris, Zoe Naselaris, Beau O'Steen, Cori O'Steen, Lance Parr, Brandon Perdue, Hadassah Rothenberg, Daniel Ryan, Kimberly Bowlin, Kevin Schnittker, Ginger Scofield, Alecia Stevens, Justin Swan, Merrick Teichman, John Van Vlack, Jr., William Waterhouse, Jennifer Waterhouse, Anne Wohlfeil, Bryan Young, Helene Kenny/Bridget Kenny Revocable Trust, 259 East Bay LLC, 259 East Bay 10 B LLC, Corner At Old Canton, LLC, Kit Properties LLC, The Naws LLC, One Henrietta LLC, Periwinkle Partners, LLC, Porch Properties LLC, Westbury Properties, LLC, and Westendorff Hardware LLC, are the Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Sean Kevin Trundy, of Sean Kevin Trundy, LLC, of Charleston, for Appellants.
Mallary Lauren Scheer, of Mallary L. Scheer, Attorney at Law, LLC, of Charleston; Michael Ashley Whitsitt, of The Whitsitt Law Firm, of Mount Pleasant; Nancy Bloodgood, of Bloodgood & Sanders, LLC, of Mount Pleasant; Lucy Clark Sanders, of Bloodgood & Sanders, LLC, of Mount Pleasant; Mary Lee Briggs, of Briggs & Inglese, LLC, of North Charleston; Gregory Kenneth Voigt, of Voigt Murphy, LLC, of Charleston; David B. Marvel, of Marvel et al., LLC, of Charleston; Christopher L. Murphy, of Murphy Law Offices, LLC, of Charleston; Daniel Carson Boles, of Boles Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston; and Stafford John McQuillin, III, of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, PA, of Charleston, all for Respondents.
This appeal arises from multiple lawsuits against property owners in Charleston alleging the owners' illegal short-term rental businesses damaged the legal short-term rental businesses of Charleston Development Company, LLC, Charleston Housing Company, LLC, and NotSo Hostel, LLC, (collectively, Appellants). Appellants appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to all defendants (some of whom are Respondents), arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against their (1) claim under City of Charleston Ordinance § 54-905; (2) claim for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA); and (3) nuisance claim. They also argue they are entitled to the video-taped depositions of Respondents. We affirm.
In 2012, the City of Charleston created a special overlay zone district to allow for short-term rentals via Ordinance § 54-120 and Ordinance § 54-202.1 Most other areas of the City prohibit short-term rentals. The City's zoning ordinance defines a short-term rental as a lease in duration between 1 and 29 days.
Appellants filed four lawsuits in 2015 alleging Respondents violated the City's zoning ordinance regarding short-term rentals. Appellants asserted Respondents' unlicensed businesses damaged Appellants because Respondents competed unfairly with Appellants' businesses and other legally-operating short-term businesses, which cost Appellants income. They asserted the unlicensed businesses displaced residents and drove up the cost of housing. Appellants further asserted Respondents' businesses constituted a nuisance because they deprived Appellants of the full financial enjoyment of their properly-licensed properties.
After being transferred to the Business Court Pilot Program, the court granted summary judgment to Respondents in all four cases based on Appellants' lack of standing and allowed Appellants to amend and consolidate their complaints. Appellants filed an amended complaint, alleging causes of action for nuisance, unjust enrichment, and violations of the City's zoning ordinance and the SCUTPA.2
Respondents filed a joint motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment to Respondents on all of Appellants' causes of action. The trial court found Appellants had not appealed any decision of the City of Charleston Zoning Administrator to the City of Charleston Board of Zoning Appeals. The court also found there was no contractual relationship between the parties, Appellants were not affected in any personal and individual manner, and Appellants were not damaged any more than any other property owner who legally rented their property on a short-term basis. Further, the court found Appellants lacked standing to sue because none of them were adjacent or neighboring property owners to Respondents.
Appellants' motion for reconsideration was denied without a hearing. This appeal followed.
"When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP." Fleming v. Rose , 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002). Summary judgment is proper if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), SCRCP. "In determining whether any triable issues of fact exist for summary judgment purposes, the evidence and all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Med. Univ. of S.C. v. Arnaud , 360 S.C. 615, 619, 602 S.E.2d 747, 749 (2004). Our supreme court has established "[t]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof." Hansson v. Scalise Builders of S.C. , 374 S.C. 352, 357-58, 650 S.E.2d 68, 71 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Baughman v. Amer. Tel. & Tel. Co. , 306 S.C. 101, 116, 410 S.E.2d 537, 545-46 (1991) ).
Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting Respondents' motion for summary judgment on Appellants' claim under the City's Ordinance § 54-905. We disagree.
The City's Zoning Ordinances are developed pursuant to state law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-340(B)(2)(a) (2004) (). The South Carolina Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act (the "Planning Act") states in pertinent part:
In case a building, structure, or land is or is proposed to be used in violation of any ordinance adopted pursuant to this chapter, the zoning administrator or other appropriate administrative officer, municipal or county attorney, or other appropriate authority of the municipality or county or an adjacent or neighboring property owner who would be specially damaged by the violation may in addition to other remedies, institute injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent the unlawful erection,...
To continue reading
Request your trial