Williams v. F. Carlisle Smith & First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., Appellate Case No. 2014-000204

• Decision Date: 19 August 2015
• Docket Number: Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-431,Appellate Case No. 2014-000204
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Patrick J. Williams, Frank J. Wallmeyer, and Mary B. Wallmeyer, Respondents, v. F. Carlisle Smith and First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc., Defendants, Of Whom F. Carlisle Smith is the Appellant.

Patrick J. Williams, Frank J. Wallmeyer, and Mary B. Wallmeyer, Respondents, v. F. Carlisle Smith and First Citizens Bank and Trust

Company, Inc., Defendants,

Of Whom F. Carlisle Smith is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000204

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-431

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Heard May 14, 2015

August 19, 2015

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.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

Richard B. Ness, Special Referee

AFFIRMED

Louis H. Lang, of Callison Tighe & Robinson, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Curtis W. Dowling and Matthew Gregory Gerrald, both of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP, of Columbia; and Gregory G. Williams, of Gregory G. Williams, Attorney, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: F. Carlisle Smith appeals the special referee's order determining the boundary between Smith's property and property owned by Patrick J. Williams, Frank J. Wallmeyer, and Mary B. Wallmeyer. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Bodiford v. Spanish Oak Farms, Inc., 317 S.C. 539, 544, 455 S.E.2d 194, 197 (Ct. App. 1995) ("A boundary dispute is an action at law, and the location of a disputed boundary line is a question of fact." (citation omitted)); Uxbridge Co. v. Poppenheim, 135 S.C. 26, 31, 133 S.E. 461, 462 (1926) (noting "[a] mere confusion of boundaries of land is not sufficient to give a court of equity jurisdiction," but finding appellant was entitled to equitable relief because appellant's only possibly remedy was through a court in equity); Townes Assocs., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 86, 221 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1976) ("In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the [special referee] will not be disturbed upon appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the [special referee's] findings."); Danley Williams v. Moore, 400 S.C. 90, 102, 733 S.E.2d 224, 230 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Questions regarding credibility and weight of evidence are exclusively for the [special referee]."); Bodiford, 317 S.C. at 543 n.1, 455 S.E.2d at 197 n.1 ("When determining boundaries, resort is generally had first to natural boundaries, next to artificial monuments, then to adjacent boundaries, and last to courses and distances."); id. at 543-44 n.1, 455 S.E.2d at 197 n.1 (explaining this rule "indicates the weight generally given to each type of evidence of location" and "does not provide an order of admissibility, such that evidence of artificial boundaries is admissible only if there is no evidence of natural boundaries" (citation omitted)); State v. Hardee, 259 S.C. 535, 539, 193 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1972) ("When a body of land is bounded by a non[-]navigable stream, the general rule is that the boundary line is the middle of the stream . . . ."); Ex parte Keller, 189 S.C. 26, 35, 199 S.E....