Kneale v. Bonds, No. 2280

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCURETON; CONNOR, J., and HOWARD
PartiesAnita W. KNEALE, Elizabeth W. Dillard, Charles R. Nairn, Martha E. Nairn, William A. Kinney, M. Violette Kinney, J. Ronald Sanders, Jacqueline Watson, Vic Meade, M. Katherine Meade, E.L. Gibson, and Roy Duffey, of whom Anita W. Kneale, Charles R. Nairn, Martha E. Nairn, William A. Kinney, M. Violette Kinney, J. Ronald Sanders, Jacqueline Watson, Vic Meade, M. Katherine Meade, E.L. Gibson, and Roy Duffey are Appellants/Respondents, v. Henry Earl BONDS and Janet Bonds, Respondents/Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 2280
Decision Date09 February 1995

Page 840

452 S.E.2d 840
317 S.C. 262
Anita W. KNEALE, Elizabeth W. Dillard, Charles R. Nairn,
Martha E. Nairn, William A. Kinney, M. Violette Kinney, J.
Ronald Sanders, Jacqueline Watson, Vic Meade, M. Katherine
Meade, E.L. Gibson, and Roy Duffey, of whom Anita W. Kneale,
Charles R. Nairn, Martha E. Nairn, William A. Kinney, M.
Violette Kinney, J. Ronald Sanders, Jacqueline Watson, Vic
Meade, M. Katherine Meade, E.L. Gibson, and Roy Duffey are
Appellants/Respondents,
v.
Henry Earl BONDS and Janet Bonds, Respondents/Appellants.
No. 2280.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Submitted Nov. 1, 1994.
Decided Dec. 12, 1994.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1995.

Page 841

[317 S.C. 264] J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., of Glenn, Haigler & Maddox; and Oren O. Jones, of Jones, Spitz, Moorhead, Baird & Hermeston, Anderson, for appellants-respondents.

J. Calhoun Pruitt, Jr., of Pruitt & Pruitt, Anderson, for respondents-appellants.

CURETON, Judge:

This suit in equity was instituted by several property owners (property owners) within the Anchor Point Horizontal Property Regime against Henry Earl Bonds and Janet Bonds, also owners of a condo unit within Anchor Point, seeking a mandatory injunction restraining the Bonds from proceeding with the erection of a 2,200 square foot addition to their condominium unit being built over a portion of the general common elements of Anchor Point. Alleging that the property owners had also encroached upon the general common and limited common elements, the Bonds claimed the property owners were estopped from seeking the relief they requested, and by way of counterclaim sought the removal of improvements erected by them. 1 The trial court held the Bonds commenced their construction in good faith and with the approval of the Board of Directors which had apparent authority to approve such improvements. The court further held the defense [317 S.C. 265] of laches was applicable to the Bonds' counterclaim, and denied both parties' requests for injunction. Both parties appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity. Holling v. Margiotta, 231 S.C. 676, 100 S.E.2d 397 (1957); Gibbs v. Kimbrell, --- S.C. ----, 428 S.E.2d 725 (Ct.App.1993). On appeal of an equitable action tried by a master, this court has authority to find facts in accordance with our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Id.

The Bonds purchased Unit 28 at Anchor Point on May 31, 1991. On June 5, 1991, the Bonds applied for permission to build an addition to their condominium which would extend onto the common elements of Anchor Point. Their application was approved by the Anchor Point Board of Directors. The Bonds thereafter commenced construction October 29, 1991. The property owners sought to prevent construction, obtaining first a temporary restraining order on November 6, 1991, and subsequently a temporary injunction on November 14, 1991. The property owners then sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of the improvements built by the Bonds. The Bonds likewise sought an injunction against several of the property owners for the removal of previously constructed alterations and additions.

The provisions of the Master Deed establishing Anchor Point (formerly The Shoals 1 Horizontal Property Regime) require authorization from the Board of Directors and a majority of the unit co-owners for any alterations or additions to the common elements. 2

Page 842

Despite this provision, the practice of Anchor[317 S.C. 266] Point since its founding in 1973 was to require only approval by the Board for alterations and additions. The Board of four directors is elected annually by a majority vote of the co-owners.

The various additions and alterations previously approved, a number of which were for the benefit of certain of the property owners, 3 are not as extensive as the Bonds' additions, which include approximately 1,300 square feet of covered space and approximately 800 square feet for a concrete pad for parking. The Bonds would apparently also require greater use of additional common areas for access to their parking area.

The trial court, nonetheless, found that all of the alterations or improvements made by the Bonds were with express or implied permission of the Board. The court also found that the Board has great discretion under Article XV in approving alterations and additions, and that no one has ever sought majority approval of the co-owners. The court concluded the Board received, under Article XV, apparent authority to approve such alterations and additions.

The court proceeded to balance the equities, in considering whether to grant a mandatory injunction for the removal of the Bonds' additions, and determined under Janasik v. Fairway Oaks Villas Horizontal Property Regime, 307 S.C. 339, 415 S.E.2d 384 (1992), that principles of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Cedar Cove Homeowners Ass'n v. DiPietro, No. 4092.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 13, 2006
    ...restrictive covenants was at law, because relief sought was general damages for loss of view and invasion of privacy) and Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 265, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct.App.1994) ("An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity."); see also S.C. Dep't of ......
  • RV Resort & Yacht Club Owners Ass'n v. BillyBob'S Marina, Inc., 2007-UP-556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 14, 2007
    ...covenants was at law, because relief sought was general damages for loss of view and invasion of privacy) [ with ] Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 265, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct. 1994) (An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity.”); see also S.C. Dep't of Natural Res......
  • RV Resort & Yacht Club Owners Assn., Inc. v. BillyBob's Marina, Inc., 2007-UP-556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 14, 2007
    ...covenants was at law, because relief sought was general damages for loss of view and invasion of privacy) [with] Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct. App. 1994) ("An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity."); see also S.C. Dep't of Natural Res.......
  • SEABROOK ISLAND v. MARSHLAND TRUST, No. 3791.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 3, 2004
    ...152, 155, 536 S.E.2d 376, 378 (Ct.App.2000). "An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity." Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 265, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct.App.1994). On appeal from an action at equity, tried by the judge alone without a reference, the appellate court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Cedar Cove Homeowners Ass'n v. DiPietro, No. 4092.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 13, 2006
    ...restrictive covenants was at law, because relief sought was general damages for loss of view and invasion of privacy) and Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 265, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct.App.1994) ("An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity."); see also S.C. Dep't of ......
  • RV Resort & Yacht Club Owners Ass'n v. BillyBob'S Marina, Inc., 2007-UP-556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 14, 2007
    ...covenants was at law, because relief sought was general damages for loss of view and invasion of privacy) [ with ] Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 265, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct. 1994) (An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity.”); see also S.C. Dep't of Natural Res......
  • RV Resort & Yacht Club Owners Assn., Inc. v. BillyBob's Marina, Inc., 2007-UP-556
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 14, 2007
    ...covenants was at law, because relief sought was general damages for loss of view and invasion of privacy) [with] Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct. App. 1994) ("An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity."); see also S.C. Dep't of Natural Res.......
  • SEABROOK ISLAND v. MARSHLAND TRUST, No. 3791.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 3, 2004
    ...152, 155, 536 S.E.2d 376, 378 (Ct.App.2000). "An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity." Kneale v. Bonds, 317 S.C. 262, 265, 452 S.E.2d 840, 841 (Ct.App.1994). On appeal from an action at equity, tried by the judge alone without a reference, the appellate court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT