Pittman v. Lowther, No. 25946.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 610 S.E.2d 479,363 S.C. 47 |
| Docket Number | No. 25946. |
| Decision Date | 22 February 2005 |
| Parties | Harold PITTMAN, Petitioner, v. C.E. LOWTHER, Respondent. |
363 S.C. 47
610 S.E.2d 479
v.
C.E. LOWTHER, Respondent
No. 25946.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard November 18, 2004.
Decided February 22, 2005.
Rehearing Denied April 7, 2005.
H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss, Kuhn & Fleming, P.A., of Beaufort, for Respondent.
Justice BURNETT.
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the trial court's order granting Harold Pittman (Petitioner) a private easement by way of prescription across C.E. Lowther's (Respondent's) property. Pittman v. Lowther, 355 S.C. 536, 586 S.E.2d 149 (Ct.App.2003). We affirm.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1972, Weldon Wall purchased Good Hope Plantation from Good Hope Corporation. At that time, trails and plantation roads crossed the 3,000-acre tract. One such road, known as Wellington Road, continues to exist and is the subject of this dispute.
Wall divided Good Hope Plantation into two parcels: Parcel A contained approximately 2,340 acres and Parcel B contained approximately 661 acres. Both parcels have frontage on Highway 278. In 1973, Wall sold Parcel A to Petitioner. Mary Wilcox later purchased Parcel B at a foreclosure sale.
Around 1982, Respondent began to place obstacles such as setting posts and cables across Wellington Road to prevent Petitioner from using the road. Petitioner continued to drive on Wellington Road, either going around the obstacles or pushing them down. Respondent replaced the obstacles when Petitioner ignored or destroyed them. Respondent reported Petitioner's actions to law enforcement authorities when Petitioner used his tractor to uproot a couple of small trees and scraped the road with his tractor.
In 1992, Petitioner stopped using the road for about four or five months while a mutual friend attempted to mediate the dispute. The attempt to mediate was unsuccessful and Petitioner resumed use of Wellington Road.
The trial court concluded Petitioner established a private prescriptive easement to the portion of Wellington Road in dispute. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court erred in finding Petitioner enjoyed uninterrupted adverse use of the land for the twenty-year period necessary to establish an easement by prescription. The Court of Appeals concluded Respondent's repeated attempts to prevent Petitioner from crossing Respondent's land constituted interruptions in Petitioner's use and enjoyment of the disputed portion of Wellington Road.1
Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding Petitioner does not have a prescriptive easement over Respondent's property because Petitioner's use was interrupted during the requisite twenty-year period?
LAW/ANALYSIS
The determination of the existence of an easement is a question of fact in a law action and subject to an any evidence standard of review when tried by a judge without a jury. Slear v. Hanna, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'dell v. Robert, No. 35488
...in causing a discontinuance of the use, no matter how brief, the running of the prescriptive period is stopped.” Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005). “[A] barrier established for the purpose of, and in fact, interrupting an adverse claimant's use is effective eve......
-
O'dell v. Robert, No. 35488.
...in causing a discontinuance of the use, no matter how brief, the running of the prescriptive period is stopped.” Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005). “[A] barrier established for the purpose of, and in fact, [226 W.Va. 618 , 703 S.E.2d 589] interrupting an advers......
-
Bundy v. Shirley, Appellate Case No. 2013–001263.
...identity of the thing enjoyed; 772 S.E.2d 170and (3) use or enjoyment which is either adverse or under claim of right. Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005).Although the elements of a prescriptive easement are well-established, the standard of proof as to these ele......
-
Butterfly Realty and Dairyland, Inc. v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc., C.A. W.C. 2010-406
...was interrupted when landowner built barrier across beach access road for several months each year); see also Pittman v. Lowther, 610 S.E.2d 479, 481 (S.C. 2005) ("[A]ctions are sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive period when the servient landowner engages in overt acts, such as erecti......
-
O'dell v. Robert, No. 35488
...in causing a discontinuance of the use, no matter how brief, the running of the prescriptive period is stopped.” Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005). “[A] barrier established for the purpose of, and in fact, interrupting an adverse claimant's use is effective eve......
-
O'dell v. Robert, No. 35488.
...in causing a discontinuance of the use, no matter how brief, the running of the prescriptive period is stopped.” Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005). “[A] barrier established for the purpose of, and in fact, [226 W.Va. 618 , 703 S.E.2d 589] interrupting an advers......
-
Bundy v. Shirley, Appellate Case No. 2013–001263.
...identity of the thing enjoyed; 772 S.E.2d 170and (3) use or enjoyment which is either adverse or under claim of right. Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005).Although the elements of a prescriptive easement are well-established, the standard of proof as to these ele......
-
Butterfly Realty and Dairyland, Inc. v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc., C.A. W.C. 2010-406
...was interrupted when landowner built barrier across beach access road for several months each year); see also Pittman v. Lowther, 610 S.E.2d 479, 481 (S.C. 2005) ("[A]ctions are sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive period when the servient landowner engages in overt acts, such as erecti......