Windham v. Riddle

• Decision Date: 20 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. 26586.,26586.
• Citation: Windham v. Riddle, 672 S.E.2d 578, 381 S.C. 192 (S.C. 2009)
• Parties: Dorothy WINDHAM, Respondent, v. Donald Allen RIDDLE and Jennifer D. Riddle, Petitioners.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

672 S.E.2d 578

381 S.C. 192

Dorothy WINDHAM, Respondent, v. Donald Allen RIDDLE and Jennifer D. Riddle, Petitioners.

No. 26586.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard October 7, 2008.

Decided January 20, 2009.

Pete Kulmala, of Harvey & Kulmala, of Barnwell, for Petitioners.

Clinch H. Belser, Jr. and Michael J. Polk, of Belser & Belser PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Justice BEATTY:

In this declaratory judgment action brought by Dorothy Windham, the master-in-equity found Donald and Jennifer Riddle (the Riddles) have an appurtenant easement for access and irrigation purposes across Windham's property. The Court of Appeals reversed the master-in-equity's holding. Windham v. Riddle, 370 S.C. 415, 635 S.E.2d 558 (Ct.App.2006). This Court granted the Riddles' petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision. We affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Riddles and Windham are adjacent property owners in Orangeburg County. Both parties purchased their property from a common grantor, Danny Covington. Covington purchased the combined property in 1991 from Edisto Farm Credit. Marvin Davis, the previous owner, had used the property as a dairy farm. In 1992, Covington had the property surveyed and divided into two tracts, 1-A and 1-B.

On November 15, 1992, Covington and Windham entered into a contract of sale for the approximately 142.38 acre tract 1-B (the Windham tract). Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Windham agreed to purchase the tract in monthly installments over a ten-year period but was allowed to pre-pay the balance without penalty. During the period of these payments, Windham was allowed full possession and occupancy of the property. After Windham satisfied the purchase price, Covington agreed to deliver "good and marketable title" to Windham. In addition to these terms, the contract provided in part:

Seller to have a 50' easement of ingress and egress for the purpose of operating and maintaining an irrigation system. [S]aid easement to be centered over existing underground piping. Seller agrees not to pump pond lower than 4' below full stage. Existing overhead utilities easement to remain as is. When possible seller to run system at times convenient to buyer. Buyer not restricting use more than 36 hours at a given time. Seller to have all rights to use waters in pond. Seller and buyer mutually agree to use pond dam and canal as an easement. [S]eller providing buyer 25' easement for ingress and egress to canal through existing woods road.

After entering into the contract of sale, Windham and her family used the tract as a family retreat, and they visited every other weekend. Covington continued to farm on tract 1-A.

In June of 1993, Covington leased a portion of the 257.49 acre tract 1-A (the Riddle tract) to the Riddles, who began using the land to operate a dairy farm. In the spring of 1994, Covington and the Riddles installed an aboveground irrigation system over the existing underground piping on the Windham tract. The pumping station for the irrigation system is located on the pond that Windham owns and transports water to the Riddle tract. Access to the pump is controlled by a locked gate on the Windham tract.

On November 17, 1997, Covington conveyed tract 1-A in its entirety to the Riddles. The deed provided in pertinent part:

Said conveyance is subject to a 30-foot easement, a 50-foot irrigation easement, a 25-foot access easement along existing woods road and a canal, all as set forth and shown on the above-referenced plat.

On December 15, 1998, pursuant to the installment contract, Covington deeded the tract to Windham after she paid off the purchase price. The deed stated in relevant part:

Said conveyance is subject to a (fifty) 50 foot easement of ingress and egress for the purpose of operating and maintaining an irrigation system and an agreement as to the use of said irrigation easement and irrigation system as set forth in that certain Contract of Sale by and between Danny Covington a/k/a J. Danny Covington, as Seller and Dorothy Windham, as Buyer dated November 15, 1992 and recorded in the office the Register of Deeds for Orangeburg County on December 28, 1992....

Although Windham initially allowed the Riddles to use the pond for irrigation purposes, she brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the Riddles on November 12, 2003, claiming the Riddles exceeded the use of the easement as contemplated by Covington and Windham in the contract of sale. In her Complaint, Windham specifically alleged the Riddles: allowed their livestock to roam on Windham's property; destroyed Windham's fences, gates, and security devices; operated the irrigation system for excessive periods of time which created a nuisance; obtained waters from Windham's property without any legal right; and allowed third parties access to the Windham property for "unauthorized purposes." As the basis for her action, Windham asserted the easement created in the contract of sale and resulting deed was an easement in gross and, thus, the Riddles had no right to this easement. In response, the Riddles asserted Windham was estopped from denying the validity of the easement. The Riddles also claimed the easement was appurtenant to the Riddle tract.

After a trial, the master-in-equity found that the contract of sale between Windham and Covington, in conjunction with the Windham and Riddle deeds, established "various easements for the purpose of irrigating Tract 1-A, the Riddle property." The master further held the easements were appurtenant to the Riddle tract and, therefore, passed to the Riddles when Covington conveyed the land to them. Additionally, the master concluded that Windham could not maintain an action for trespass because the Riddles, the owners of the dominant estate, did not abuse or exceed the limits of the easements. Ultimately, the master dismissed Windham's Complaint with prejudice and ordered that the "irrigation easements are appurtenant to the real estate subject to this action and exist as set forth on the recorded plats."

Subsequently, the master denied Windham's motion to alter or amend the judgment. Windham then appealed the master's decision to the Court of Appeals.

In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the master-in-equity. Windham v. Riddle, 370 S.C. 415, 635 S.E.2d 558 (Ct.App.2006). The majority found the master erred by concluding that the easement at issue was appurtenant rather than in gross. Prefacing its analysis with a general discussion of the differences between an appurtenant easement and an easement in gross, the majority focused on the installment land contract that was the subject of the dispute. Citing this Court's opinion in Lewis v. Premium Investment Corporation, the majority noted that typically in this type of contract, "the seller retains legal title until the purchase price has been fully paid, and the purchaser is entitled to immediate possession." Id. at 419, 635 S.E.2d at 560; see Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 170-73, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363-64 (2002) (stating that in an installment land contract, the seller retains legal title until the purchase price is fully paid and that the vendee in possession of the land is the owner of an equitable interest in the property).

Relying on the long-standing common law rule that an easement cannot exist where both the purported servient and dominant estates are owned by the same person, the majority found that an easement could not have been created by the 1992 contract of sale. Id. at 419, 635 S.E.2d at 560 (citing Haselden v. Schein, 167 S.C. 534, 539, 166 S.E. 634, 635 (1932)). Specifically, the majority stated, "[a]s Covington retained legal title to the Windham tract and also held title to the Riddle tract, no easement could have been created by the Windham contract of sale in 1992." Windham, 370 S.C. at 419, 635 S.E.2d at 560.

The majority further relied on its earlier decision in Springob v. Farrar, 334 S.C. 585, 514 S.E.2d 135 (Ct.App.1999). In Springob, Dr. Shenoy owned Lot 14, and his wife owned adjoining Lot 13, where the Shenoys' home was located. The Shenoys built a well on Lot 14 and attached it to an irrigation system serving Lot 13. In 1986, Dr. Shenoy sold Lot 14 to L.G.B., Inc. The deed from Dr. Shenoy "reserved to the Grantor" an easement on Lot 13 for use of the well on Lot 14. A house was built on Lot 14 and eventually the Farrars bought the property in 1988. The deed to the Farrars stated "this conveyance is subject to all easements, rights, reservations, restrictions, and covenants of record affecting said property." Id. at 587, 514 S.E.2d at 137. The Farrars' closing attorney informed them of the easement to the well located on their property. In 1989, Mrs. Shenoy sold Lot 13 to Kenneth Perry, and the South Carolina Federal Savings Bank obtained title to the lot through foreclosure. While Lot 13 was vacant, the Farrars disconnected the well on their property from the Lot 13 irrigation system and connected it to their own system serving Lot 14.

In 1993, Springob purchased Lot 13 unaware of the easement on Lot 14. After discovering the well on Lot 14, Springob demanded use of the well, but the Farrars refused. Springob brought an action for trespass and intentional interference with and obstruction of an easement. He also sought an injunction prohibiting the Farrars from further interfering with the easement. The Farrars answered, asserting the easement was personal to Dr. Shenoy and, therefore, was an easement in gross. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Farrars, finding the easement was in gross rather than appurtenant. In so holding, the Court of Appeals stated:

In this case, L.G.B. Deed reserved an easement in favor of "the Grantor." The grantor of the L.G.B. Deed was Dr. Shenoy, the sole owner of Lot 14. Because the easement was reserved for Dr. Shenoy only, and Dr. Shenoy did not own Lot 13,...