Country Props. v. Martin
| Decision Date | 04 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case 2019-000569,2021-UP-292 |
| Parties | Country Properties, LLC, Appellant, v. Nancy Dunn Martin, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard February 10, 2021
Appeal From Richland County Joseph M. Strickland, Master-in-Equity
John W. Wells, of Baxley Pratt & Wells, of Lugoff, and Michael Brent McDonald, of Bundy McDonald, LLC, of Summerville, both for Appellant.
Joey Randell Floyd and Chelsea Jaqueline Clark, both of Bruner Powell Wall & Mullins, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
The underlying case is about whether Country Properties, LLC (Country) has an easement over Nancy Martin's land, but it comes to us as an appeal of an order granting a new trial. The master ruled Country possessed an easement on three separate grounds-express grant, prescription, and by public dedication- but after the master denied Martin's motion for reconsideration, the master granted Martin's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Rule 60(b)(2), SCRCP.
The key feature of Martin's Rule 60 motion related to a dam on Country's property. The testimony at the 2016 bench trial was that the dam had been washed out and was impassable. Martin argued that driving across the dam normally allowed Country to access all of its land and that Country did not need any easement over her property.
The Rule 60 motion was based on photographs showing the dam had been repaired. The photos were taken in August 2017. This was nearly a year and a half after the bench trial, but only a few months after the master denied Martin's motion for reconsideration.
There was no evidence or testimony about when the repairs occurred. In her memorandum supporting her Rule 60 motion, Martin argued "To [her] knowledge the dam wasn't rebuilt at the time of trial."
Precedent explains that newly discovered evidence must be such that it will probably change the result of trial. Lanier v Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 217, 612 S.E.2d 456, 459 (Ct. App. 2005). As already noted, the master found an easement under multiple separate theories including easement by grant and easement by dedication. Public dedication requires an intent to dedicate property "to public use in a positive and unmistakable manner." Boyd v. Hyatt, 294 S.C 360, 364, 364 S.E.2d 478, 480 (Ct. App. 1988). An easement by grant hinges on examining the words of a written instrument. Ten Woodruff Oaks, LLC v. Point Dev., LLC, 385 S.C 174, 180-81, 683 S.E.2d 510, 513-14 (Ct. App. 2009). The fact that Country may be able to access its entire property without an easement over Martin's land has no bearing on these claims. Thus, the evidence cannot be material to them.
The order granting a new trial included a brief sentence stating that the evidence would have changed the case's outcome. We cannot conceive a rationale that would explain that statement, and we cannot agree with its conclusion. To do so we would have to ignore that alternative means of access have no relation whatsoever to easement by grant or by public dedication. As we have previously observed, albeit in a different context, "whatever doesn't make any difference, doesn't matter." McCall v Finley, 294 S.C. 1, 4, 362 S.E.2d 26, 28 (Ct. App. 1987).
There is no question alternative access would have been relevant to a claim for an easement by necessity. Here, however, the record conspicuously discloses that all parties agreed at various points in this case that easement by necessity was not an issue.
The evidence about the dam's repair was also cumulative. See Jamison v. Ford Motor Co., 373 S.C. 248, 273 644 S.E.2d 755, 768 (Ct. App. 2007) (); Lanier, 364 S.C. at 217, 612 S.E.2d at 459 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial