Stanton v. Town of Pawleys Island

• Decision Date: 08 February 2023
• Docket Number: 2023-UP-055,Appellate Case 2021-000757
• Parties: M. Baron Stanton, Appellant, v. Town of Pawleys Island, Respondent. And Franklin D. Beattie, as trustee of The Franklin D. Beattie Preservation Trust, Appellant, v. Town of Pawleys Island, Respondent. And Sunset Lodge, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Pawleys Island, Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

1

M. Baron Stanton, Appellant, v. Town of Pawleys Island, Respondent. And Franklin D. Beattie, as trustee of The Franklin D. Beattie Preservation Trust, Appellant, v. Town of Pawleys Island, Respondent. And Sunset Lodge, LLC, Appellant, v. Town of Pawleys Island, Respondent.

No. 2023-UP-055

Appellate Case No. 2021-000757

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

February 8, 2023

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted January 31, 2023

Appeal From Georgetown County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge M Baron Stanton, of Stanton Law Offices, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellants.

Norwood David DuRant, Sr. and Norwood David DuRant, Jr., both of Law Offices of N. David DuRant & Assoc., of Surfside Beach; and William Clayton Dillard, Jr., of Belser & Belser, PA, of Columbia, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

M Baron Stanton, Franklin D. Beattie, as trustee of the Franklin D. Beattie Preservation Trust, and Sunset Lodge, LLC (collectively, Landowners) appeal the circuit court's dismissal of their condemnation challenge actions as moot following the Town of Pawleys Island's (the Town's) abandonment of it notices of condemnation. On appeal, Landowners argue (1) the Town's notices of abandonment were invalid, and if they were valid, they must be treated as permanently barring future condemnation attempts; (2) their challenge actions were not moot; (3) their causes of action remained viable notwithstanding the Town's abandonment of the condemnation notices because they sought prospective or present relief; and (4) the circuit court abused its discretion in curtailing discovery against the Town by dismissing their challenge actions. We affirm.

1. We hold the Town's abandonment of the condemnation notices was valid because the Town had not taken possession of or made material alterations to the condemned properties and therefore did not need Landowners' permission to abandon the condemnation actions. See S.C. Code Ann. § 28-2-230(B) (2007) ("The condemnor may not abandon the condemnation action after taking possession if material alterations have been made in the property, except with consent of the landowner."); Jennings v. Sawyer, 182 S.C. 427, 438, 189 S.E. 746, 751 (1937) ("[I]n the absence of statutory authority, the condemnor may abandon the property condemned at any time before taking actual possession and entering thereupon."), overruled on other grounds by McCall by Andrews v. Batson, 285 S.C. 243, 329 S.E.2d 741 (1985).

2. We hold the challenge actions are moot because the Town abandoned the condemnation notices Landowners sought to quash in their challenge actions. See Sloan v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20, 25, 630 S.E.2d 474, 477 (2006) ("Generally, [the appellate c]ourt only considers cases presenting a justiciable controversy."); id. at 26, 630 S.E.2d at 477 ("A moot case exists whe[n] a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court."). Further, while the Town's filing of the condemnation notices is capable of repetition, it does not evade review. See Curtis v State, 345 S.C. 557, 568, 549 S.E.2d 591, 596 (2001) ("[A]n appellate court can take jurisdiction, despite mootness, if the issue raised is capable of repetition but evading review."); Sloan, 369 S.C. at 27, 630 S.E.2d at 478 (stating "the action must be one [that] will truly evade review" for the mootness exception to apply); Seabrook v. City of Folly Beach, 337 S.C. 304, 306-07, 523 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1999) (holding that the case became moot when the City of Folly Beach voluntarily removed conditions it imposed and granted approval of the plat and the property owner and developer abandoned their taking claim and explaining that "while the factual scenario presented by this...