Worsley Companies v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, No. 25070.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: MOORE, Justice
• Citation: 339 S.C. 51,528 S.E.2d 657
• Parties: WORSLEY COMPANIES, INC., Appellant, v. TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, Commissioner of Public Works of the Town of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, and Angelo Hassig, Respondents.
• Docket Number: No. 25070.
• Decision Date: 22 February 2000

339 S.C. 51
528 S.E.2d 657

WORSLEY COMPANIES, INC., Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT, Commissioner of Public Works of the Town of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, and Angelo Hassig, Respondents

No. 25070.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard November 17, 1999.

Decided February 22, 2000.

339 S.C. 53

W. Andrew Gowder, Jr., of Pratt-Thomas, Pearce, Epting & Walker, P.A., of Charleston, for appellant

James Elliott, of Barnwell, Whaley, Patterson & Helms; and Thomas J. Wills, of Wills & Massalon, both of Charleston; and R. Allen Young, of Office of Corporate Counsel, of Mt. Pleasant, for respondent Town of Mt. Pleasant.

Michael J. Feri, of Grimball & Cabaniss, of Charleston; and David G. Jennings, of North Charleston, for respondents Commissioner of Public Works of the Town of Mt. Pleasant and Angelo Hassig.

MOORE, Justice:

Appellant brought this action alleging a temporary regulatory taking and denial of substantive due process. The circuit court granted respondents summary judgment. We affirm.

339 S.C. 54

FACTS

In 1986, appellant Worsley Companies (Worsley) built a Scotchman on a tract of land (Tract B) leased from Daniel and Mildred Hall (Halls). Worsley constructed a sewer line across an adjacent tract of land (Tract A), which the Halls also owned, and connected it to Town of Mount Pleasant's (Town's) sewer system. This sewer line was never dedicated or otherwise transferred to Town or Mount Pleasant Waterworks and Sewer Commission (Commission). In 1994, Worsley was also leasing part of Tract A(A-1) owned by the Halls and began construction of a propane facility. The Halls retained the remaining portion of Tract A (Tract A-2).

In June 1994, Worsley was issued a building permit for the propane facility on Tract A-1. On August 30, 1994, Worsley applied for a water and sewer permit from Commission. Commission informed Worsley that an easement was needed for the existing sewer lines prior to the issuance of a permit. Worsley signed the easement documents and sent them to Commission. Commission responded that the easement would have to be granted by the property owners, the Halls, and not Worsley. Town refused to issue a certificate of occupancy until Worsley had water and sewer service. Worsley filed an action seeking an injunction and damages against both Town and Commission.

In January 1995, the Halls and Worsley executed an agreement which allowed Worsley access to the existing water and sewer lines which were located on Tract A-2. This agreement satisfied Commission and it granted service to Worsley. Thereafter, Town issued a certificate of occupancy. Worsley amended its complaint to dismiss the injunction cause of action but still sought damages for a temporary regulatory taking and denial of substantive due process.

ISSUE

Did the circuit court err in granting respondents summary judgment?

DISCUSSION

Worsley contends the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment because there were questions of fact surrounding the issues in this case. We disagree.

339 S.C. 55

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is clear there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summer v. Carpenter, 328 S.C. 36, 492 S.E.2d 55 (1997); Rule 56(c), SCRCP. In determining whether any triable issue of fact exists, the evidence and all inferences which can be reasonably drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Koester v. Carolina Rental Ctr., Inc., 313 S.C. 490, 443 S.E.2d 392 (1994). If triable issues exist, those...