Southern Development Land and Golf Co., Ltd. v. South Carolina Public Service Authority

• Decision Date: 03 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 23772,23772
• Citation: 426 S.E.2d 748,311 S.C. 29
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , Util. L. Rep. P 26,282 SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT LAND AND GOLF COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, Respondent. . Heard

Page 748

426 S.E.2d 748

311 S.C. 29, Util. L. Rep. P 26,282

SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT LAND AND GOLF COMPANY, LTD., Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, Respondent.

No. 23772.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 3, 1992.

Decided Jan. 4, 1993.

Thomas E. McCutchen, Jeter E. Rhodes, Jr., and John C. Bradley, Jr., of Whaley, McCutchen, Blanton & Rhodes, Columbia, for petitioner.

G. Dana Sinkler and Elizabeth T. Thomas, of Robertson & Sinkler, Charleston, Michael W. Battle, of Loveless & Battle, Conway, and John Tiencken, of the South Carolina Public Service Authority, Moncks Corner, for respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

FINNEY, Justice:

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Master-in-Equity ("Master") erred in finding the South Carolina Public Service Authority (hereinafter "Santee Cooper") was equitably estopped from condemning a portion of Southern Development Land and Golf Company's (hereinafter "Southern") land for the construction of a high voltage electric transmission line. The Court of Appeals reversed the Master on this issue. We reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the Master's finding of equitable estoppel.

FACTS

In the summer of 1987, Kenneth Tomlinson, president of Southern, was considering purchasing property for the development of a golf and residential community. Tomlinson found the property at issue in this action and determined it was ideal for Southern's plan. The property, however, was encumbered by an electrical-power service line mounted on wooden poles and a higher power distribution line, both running through the property. Tomlinson was concerned that the existence of any exposed power lines would destroy the anticipated high quality of this development. ¹ Accordingly, prior to signing a contract purchasing an option on the property, Tomlinson contacted the former Chairman of the Board of Santee Cooper, Robert Davis. Mr. Davis referred him to Joseph Norman, who was then an Executive Vice President of Santee Cooper. On June 11, 1987, the day Tomlinson signed a contract for an option on this property, Tomlinson called Norman. Tomlinson told Norman he was preparing to purchase this property. He informed Norman of Southern's plans for the property and the expense involved, which was in excess of fifty million ($50,000,000) dollars. Tomlinson expressed to Norman his concern with the existence of overhead power lines and Southern's need to avoid all exposed power lines on the property. Norman informed Tomlinson that the smaller power lines would be buried at the expense of Santee Cooper and that the major transmission line could be buried at a cost which would be shared by Southern and Santee Cooper. However, Norman did not tell Tomlinson that Santee Cooper had finalized plans to construct overhead high voltage, transmission towers and lines in place of the existing lines on the property. There was no public notice of these plans. Santee Cooper's plans necessitated the condemnation of a seventy (70) foot easement over Southern's property to connect to pre- existing easements. Southern closed on the property and began its development. Southern also purchased additional adjoining land in January of 1988.

Southern first learned of Santee Cooper's plans to condemn the property in February of 1988. Tomlinson sent a letter to Norman at that time recapping their previous conversation but acknowledging the representations made by Norman were not legally binding. Southern proposed several alternative routes which were rejected by Santee Cooper based on criteria which did not include the price of condemning the land involved. Santee Cooper offered to bury the planned transmission lines but at a cost to Southern of over two million dollars ($2,000,000). Southern maintains it would not have purchased the property had it known of Santee Cooper's plan to install this transmission line bisecting the property.

Southern brought this action challenging Santee Cooper's right to condemn. Southern's complaint alleges Santee Cooper's condemnation of a portion of this property constituted an abuse of discretion because Santee Cooper failed to consider, among other factors, the land acquisition costs when selecting the proposed route. Southern further alleges that Santee Cooper should be equitably estopped from condemning this property based on Santee Cooper's assurances to Southern that all existing lines could be readily buried without informing Southern that a much larger scaled transmission line was planned.

The action was referred to as the Master-in-Equity. The Master found for Southern on both grounds and enjoined Santee Cooper from condemning Southern's property for the necessary easement. Santee Cooper appealed the Master's decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Master's finding on the issue of estoppel and modified the Master's finding on the question of abuse of discretion. Southern Dev. Land & Golf Co., v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 305 S.C. 507, 409 S.E.2d 428 (Ct.App.1991). The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Master to allow Santee Cooper to re-evaluate its proposed route and the alternate routes proposed by Southern. The Court of Appeals directed Santee Cooper to consider safety, reliability, aesthetics and costs along with any other appropriate factors such as environmental conditions and long range area planning by public authorities.

Law/Analysis

The essential elements of estoppel as related to the party estopped are: (1) conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or, at...