Proctor v. Steedley
| Citation | 398 S.C. 561,730 S.E.2d 357 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 4999.,4999. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Sheran PROCTOR, Respondent, v. Ola Mae STEEDLEY, Appellant. Appellate Case No.2010–172286. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Sonja Renee Tate, of Fulcher Hagler LLP, of Augusta, Georgia, for Appellant.
Thomas P. Murphy, of North Augusta, for Respondent.
In this declaratory judgment action, Ola Mae Steedley appeals the special referee's order, which concluded that her predecessor in title, Claude Smith, granted an appurtenant easement across her property to the prior owner of an adjoining parcel. We affirm.
Appellant Ola Mae Steedley is the owner of a parcel of land located on Sweetwater Road in Edgefield County, South Carolina.1 To the west of Steedley's parcel is an adjoining parcel owned by Respondent Sheran Proctor (Parcel 1). To the southwest of this adjoining parcel is a smaller parcel also owned by Proctor (Parcel 2). Proctor's two parcels, which are located on an unpaved road, Country Manor Lane, and Steedley's parcel originated from a common grantor, Claude Smith.2 Hereinafter, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 will be referenced together as one tract (Proctor's property).
The dispute in this case arises over the nature of an easement granted in 1973 by Smith to Proctor's parents and predecessors in title, Karl and Mary Louise Burger. The easement allowed the Burgers to access the northern part of their property from Sweetwater Road by use of an unpaved road crossing Smith's adjoining parcel to the east, which is now owned by Steedley. Smith and the owner of neighboring property to the north, Emerson Odom, had created this access road for their own use a few years before Smith granted the easement allowing the Burgers to use the road as well. In 1981, after Smith died, his widow conveyed the parcel abutting Sweetwater Road to David Steedley.
Proctor's property lies directly north of Country Manor Lane, which forks off from Randall Road; thus, Proctor can access the southern part of her property from Country Manor Lane. However, a creek bisects Proctor's property; 3 hence, she cannot access the part of her property to the north of the creek from Country Manor Lane. While it is possible to access the northern part of Proctor's property from the unpaved access road that crosses Steedley's property, Steedley erected a locked gate preventing Proctor from using the access road. Therefore, Proctor brought this action seeking a judgment declaring that the right to use this access road, granted by Smith to her parents in 1973, was transferrable to her, i.e., an appurtenant easement.
The following language appears in the 1973 deed from Smith to the Burgers:
It is understood and agreed by and between the Grantor and the Grantees that an access road shall be maintained between the property of Temples and the Smith property which leads from the Five Notch Road to the lands herein conveyed and an access road from the Five Notch Road on the South and Southwestern part of the said property hereinabove conveyed.4
The first access road described in the deed relates to the easement at issue. 5 Although the deed states that this access road “leads from” Five Notch (now Sweetwater) Road, it is actually separated from Sweetwater Road by an area described by Steedley's son as approximately forty to fifty feet long and “ditch-like.” Thus, anyone desiring to drive a vehicle on this access road must cross a parcel to the north of the access road to get to and from Sweetwater Road.
The access road runs along the property line between the Steedley (formerly Smith) parcel and the Odom parcel, then it reaches a fork; to the left (south), it runs to a pond on the Smith property, and to the right, it runs onto the northern part of Proctor's property and terminates at a cul-de-sac. Depending on the precise location, the width of the access road is between eight and twenty feet; it is wide enough for a truck or a tractor to traverse.
Proctor and her family have used their property for activities such as picnicking and gathering firewood. They cut a path from the southernmost part of the property to the creek. Proctor's mother and step-father put a trailer on the southern part of the property abutting Country Manor Lane. Additionally, Proctor's mother had timber cut from the property on at least one occasion. The timber company did not use the access road to the northern part of the property. Instead, the loggers pushed the timber across the creek by building a temporary bridge and took all the timber to the southern part of the property and out via Country Manor Lane.
After Steedley's husband passed away, her family became concerned about trespassers using the access road to get to the pond on her property. Consequently, the family installed an unlocked chain across the road. They later replaced the chain with a gate, which initially remained unlocked. Once the gate was locked, Steedley's family offered keys to neighbors who might use the access road. However, the family did not offer a key to Proctor.
Several months after the chain and then the gate were installed, Proctor contacted Steedley, requesting use of the access road and indicating that she was going to send her a copy of the deeds creating the easement.6 Proctor called Steedley a second time to determine if she had received the copies of the deeds. Steedley indicated she had received them and “had turned it over to her son.” Steedley's son later telephoned Proctor and told her not to call his mother again.
On December 17, 2008, Proctor filed an action seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment establishing (a) the grant of an appurtenant easement; and (b) the easement's width; (2) injunctive relief prohibiting Steedley from denying Proctor the use of the easement; and (3) economic damages. The complaint cited the language in the deed between their respective predecessors-in-interest. Steedley asserted that any grant of a right to use the access road was an easement in gross that was personal to the original contracting parties.
A special referee conducted a hearing on July 21, 2010. At that time, Proctor abandoned her claim for damages and pursued only her claims for equitable relief. Immediately prior to the hearing before the special referee, Steedley moved to exclude the testimony of Proctor's expert witness, Keith Taylor, an attorney who had practiced in the area of real property law for over twenty-seven years. Taylor performs his own title examinations and writes title insurance. Steedley objected to the admission of Taylor's testimony on the ground that it would be improper for an attorney to give an expert opinion as to what would be the “ultimate question of law” in the case, i.e., whether the easement in question was an easement in gross or an appurtenant easement. The special referee ruled that he would allow Taylor's testimony. Steedley noted a continuing objection to Taylor's testimony.
Taylor testified that whether the easement was appurtenant or in gross depended on the intent of the parties at the time the deed was executed. He gave his opinion as to the plain meaning of the phrase “access road” as used in the deed:
An access road just means ... a road to access your property. It would mean a right to transfer the access of that road. I mean, I think a plain meaning of an access road is a way to access the property. You don't buy landlocked property thinking, well, I'll never be able to transfer or sell this property because I don't have access to it. So, an access road would mean, I think, an easement in perpetuity and appurtenant to the property.
Taylor also gave his opinion as to the nature of the easement in the present case: “[T]he access road granted is an easement appurtenant to the property, because the plain meaning of an access road is a way of accessing your property, and would be one that could be conveyed to subsequent purchasers.”
The special referee issued a written order concluding that the easement created by the language of the deed from Smith to the Burgers established an appurtenant easement for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The special referee also ruled “henceforth the easement shall be twenty (20) feet in width throughout its current path across [Steedley's] property.”
The order further required steps to be taken to continue the access road from its current termination point on Steedley's property to Sweetwater Road so that users of the road will not have to cross the neighboring property to the north. Finally, the order stated “nothing contained in this Order shall be interpreted as allowing [Proctor] the right to materially increase the volume of traffic over the access road beyond her personal use and that of members of her family and invitees.” This appeal followed.
1. Did the special referee err in concluding that the easement across Steedley's property was an appurtenant easement?
2. Did the special referee improperly expand the scope of the easement?
3. May this court affirm the special referee's order on the ground that Proctor has an easement by necessity?
4. Did the special referee err in admitting an attorney's testimony as to the issue of the grantor's intent as expressed in the deed?
The distinction between an appurtenant easement and an easement in gross involves the extent of a grant of an easement, as opposed to the creation of an easement. See Windham v. Riddle, 370 S.C. 415, 418, 635 S.E.2d 558, 559 (Ct.App.2006) (), aff'd,381 S.C. 192, 672 S.E.2d 578 (2009).7 The determination of the extent of a grant of an easement is an action in equity. Tupper v. Dorchester Cnty., 326 S.C. 318, 323, 487 S.E.2d 187, 190 (1997). Therefore, on appeal of such a determination, this court may take its own view of the preponderance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Wescott Land Co.
-
Snow v. Smith
...623 (2001)."[T]he determination of whether language in a deed is ambiguous is a question of law." Proctor v. Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573 n. 8, 730 S.E.2d 357, 363–64 n. 8 (Ct.App.2012). " The language in a deed is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." I......
-
Williams v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles
... ... (Ct. App. 2015) ("This court [Court of Appeals] reviews ... questions of law de novo.") (quoting Proctor v ... Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573, 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct ... App. 2012)). It is axiomatic that the ALC may reverse on ... ...
-
Williams v. S.C. Dep't of Motor Vehicles
... ... (Ct. App. 2015) ("This court [Court of Appeals] reviews ... questions of law de novo.") (quoting Proctor v ... Steedley, 398 S.C. 561, 573, 730 S.E.2d 357, 363 (Ct ... App. 2012)). It is axiomatic that the ALC may reverse on ... ...