First Baptist Church of Mauldin v. City of Mauldin

• Decision Date: 10 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. 23649,23649
• Citation: 308 S.C. 226,417 S.E.2d 592
• Parties: FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF MAULDIN, South Carolina; John Center as Chairman of the Deacons, Respondent, v. CITY OF MAULDIN, Appellant. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 592

417 S.E.2d 592

308 S.C. 226

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF MAULDIN, South Carolina; John

Center as Chairman of the Deacons, Respondent, v. CITY OF MAULDIN, Appellant.

No. 23649.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard March 10, 1992.

Decided April 27, 1992.

H. Michael Spivey, Mauldin, for appellant.

Timothy E. Madden and David H. Wilkins, Wilkins and Nelson, Greenville, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the lower court erred in ordering the closure of a road within the City of Mauldin ("City") under S.C.Code Ann. Section 57-9-10 et seq. We find the closure was proper and affirm.

FACTS

The First Baptist Church of Mauldin ("Church") owns 12.7 acres which is divided, 7.8 acres on one side and 4.1 acres on the other side of an unpaved public road. The Church is the only property owner abutting this road. The Church's day care facility was adjacent to the road. In order to expand the day care facility, the Church sought to close the roads. After several City council members indicated they would be unwilling to close the road, the Church brought this action in Circuit Court under Section 57-9-10 of the South Carolina Code. Under this provision, any interested party may petition the court to close any road, street or highway. The court may order the road closed upon a determination that it is in the best interest of all concerned and transfer title to an appropriate party. S.C.Code Ann. Section 57-9-20 (1991).

At the hearing, the Church presented testimony supporting its need to expand. The parties stipulated the Church was an asset to the community. Additionally, the Church submitted competent testimony attesting to the dangerous use of this road which aside from church traffic served as a "cut through" for traffic trying to avoid the traffic lights on the major roadways. The road is narrow and it has a substantial curve with limited visibility. The road presented a danger to its travelers and the children attending the Church day care. There was testimony that the closure of the road would increase traffic on a parallel residential street. However, there was additional testimony that this concern would be alleviated by the use of traffic signs. It was undisputed this type of cut through traffic should be discouraged. The lower court found it was in the best interest of all concerned that the road be closed and provided for transfer of title to the Church.

The City brought this appeal raising essentially two issues. First, the City argues Section 5-27-150 of the South Carolina Code gives the City exclusive rights to close roads within the City limits. Under the City's argument, the Circuit Court's review would be appellate and limited to determining whether the City's actions constituted fraud or clear abuse of discretion. City of Greenville v. Bozeman, 254 S.C. 306, 175 S.E.2d 211 (1970). Section 5-27-150 provides in part:

The city council of any city containing more than five thousand inhabitants may open new streets, close, widen, or alter streets in the city when, in its judgment, it may be necessary for the improvement of the city.

In construing a statute, its words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Byrant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 368 S.E.2d 899 (1988). We can find no language supporting the City's contention of exclusive jurisdiction in the text of Section 5-27-150. Nor does the language of Section 57-9-10 et seq. support its inapplicability to roads within a city. To the...