Lovering v. Seabrook Island Property Owners Ass'n

• Decision Date: 19 January 1987
• Docket Number: No. 22659,22659
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Richard S. LOVERING and Erroll Lovering, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated property owners in the Seabrook Island Development in the County of Charleston, State of South Carolina, Respondents, v. SEABROOK ISLAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Respondent. E.C.M. WALLER and Adelaide Waller, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated property owners in the Seabrook Island Development in the County of Charleston, State of South Carolina, Respondents, v. SEABROOK ISLAND COMPANY and Seabrook Island Property Owners Association Of whom Seabrook Island Company is Respondent-Petitioner, And Seabrook Island Property Owners Association is Petitioner-Respondent.

Page 707

352 S.E.2d 707

291 S.C. 201

Richard S. LOVERING and Erroll Lovering, on behalf of

themselves and all other similarly situated property owners

in the Seabrook Island Development in the County of

Charleston, State of South Carolina, Respondents, v. SEABROOK ISLAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Respondent.

E.C.M. WALLER and Adelaide Waller, on behalf of themselves

and all other similarly situated property owners in the

Seabrook Island Development in the County of Charleston, State of South Carolina, Respondents, v. SEABROOK ISLAND COMPANY and Seabrook Island Property Owners

Association Of whom Seabrook Island Company is

Respondent-Petitioner,

And Seabrook Island Property Owners Association is

Petitioner-Respondent.

No. 22659.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted Dec. 8, 1986.

Decided Jan. 19, 1987.

W. Foster Gaillard, of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, Gedney M. Howe, III, and David B. Wheeler, of Holmes & Thomson, Charleston, for petitioner-respondent.

Robert H. Hood, and Alexander Bullock, both of Robert Hood & Associates, Charleston, for respondent-petitioner.

J. Randolph Pelzer, of Pelzer & Algar, P.A., Charleston, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Respondents, who are both Seabrook Island property owners, commenced these actions to challenge the validity of an assessment imposed by Petitioner Seabrook Island Property Owners Association (Association) to pay for bridge repairs and a beach renourishment project. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Association and Petitioner Seabrook Island Company (Company), and respondents appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the actions of the Association were ultra vires. Lovering v. Seabrook Island Property Owners Ass'n, 289 S.C. 77, 344 S.E.2d 862 (Ct.App.1986). The Association and the Company now seek a writ of certiorari. We grant certiorari, dispense with further briefing, and affirm as modified.

It is undisputed that the Association had no express power to impose the assessment at issue. The Association and the Company argue, however, that the power to levy this special assessment was an implied or incidental power of the Association's authority under its By-laws to maintain and preserve the amenities and values of the development.

Implied or incidental powers are those which are reasonably necessary to the execution of the corporation's express powers, not those which are merely convenient or useful. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co. v. South Carolina Public Service Auth., 215 S.C. 193, 54 S.E.2d 777 (1949); Creech v. South Carolina Public Service Auth., 200 S.C. 127, 20 S.E.2d 645 (1942).

...