Doctrine of Laches

What happens if an easement is abandoned? While most easements in South Carolina last indefinitely, abandonment is one way to extinguish an easement. In that instance, the original rights revert to the property owner(s).

This sounds straightforward enough, but, as with many legal matters, sometimes straightforward things get complicated.

Case in point: the 2023 South Carolina Court of Appeals case Myers v. Town of Calhoun Falls (read it here). In short, a railroad line built on properties through the use of easements was abandoned and dismantled, and property owners sought to regain their property rights approximately thirty years later.

Questions the court looked at:

• Was the railroad properly abandoned, thus giving the court subject matter jurisdiction and authority to declare the easements terminated?
• Did the property owners wait too long to attempt to regain their rights, and should the doctrine of laches have barred them?

(For a refresher on easements in South Carolina, read more here on our blog.)

Brief Background of Myers vs. Town of Calhoun Falls (2023)

The railroad

Way back in 1878, South Carolina chartered the Savannah Valley Railroad Company to construct a railroad. This necessitated several easements on properties in McCormick County and Abbeville County, SC.

Over the years, the rights to the properties have been conveyed to successors of the Savannah Valley Railroad Company and have been recorded in deeds on the affected properties. The wording in a sample deed presented to the court included language stipulating that the easement was for the purpose of a railroad.

By the 1970s, the railroad was owned and operated by Seaboard Systems Railroad, Inc. (Railroad), which eventually sought permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission to close down the track. Permission was granted, and the railroad was entirely dismantled and removed by the end of February 1980.

Part of the Railroad’s interests in the properties eventually ended up in the possession of the Town of Calhoun Falls and another part in the possession of Savannah Valley Trails, Inc. (SVT), together the Appellants in this case.

The lawsuits

SVT began construction of a walking trail where the railway used to be. Not long after, Annie L. Myers and many other present-day owners of the affected properties (Respondents) took legal action, requesting declaratory relief as to the property rights of the easements. (Separate but similar actions by property owners in McCormick County and Abbeville County were consolidated by the trial court.)

In February 2020, the trial court found that Railroad had abandoned the line, and consequently the easements terminated and the associated property rights reverted to the property owners.

The matter then went to the South Carolina Court of Appeals in 2023.

Proving Abandonment – Which Party Has the Burden of Proof?

SVT argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because Respondents failed to prove the railroad was properly abandoned, meaning the issue was still under the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (previously the Interstate Commerce Commission, or the ICC).

The railroad had been abandoned as a matter of fact: the track was dismantled and removed, and Railroad sent a letter to the ICC stating that the line was officially abandoned on February 15, 1980. But SVT argued that Respondents did not produce Railroad’s journal entries documenting the abandonment of the line as requested by the ICC, so the abandonment was incomplete.

The appeals court stated that the burden of proof was on SVT to show that the abandonment was incomplete, not on Respondents to show the abandonment occurred in a particular manner. True, the appeals court noted, the record did not include journal entries as requested by the ICC. But neither did the record contain evidence that Railroad did not comply with its requests. SVT did not meet the burden of proof.

Therefore, the appeals court found that the trial court did have subject matter jurisdiction and had the authority to make a judgement on the easements.

Waiting Too Long – Should Laches Have Barred the Respondents’ Claim?

SVT also argued that Respondents’ claims should have been barred by the trial court by the doctrine of laches.

Laches is an equitable doctrine stemming from common law. It is, as described in Hallums v. Hallums (1988) and quoted by the court in the current opinion, “neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances affording opportunity for diligence, to do what should have been done.” In other words, if a party waits too long to take action on a legal issue – like asserting or regaining their rights – they may have lost their chance for good.

Respondents waited approximately 30 years to seek declaratory relief regarding their property rights, despite having the opportunity to do so. The trial court did find this delay unreasonable.

But “The failure to assert a right ‘does not come into existence until there is a reason or situation that demands assertion’” (citing Mid-State Tr., II v. Wright, 1996, quoting Ex parte Stokes, 1971). Additionally, “the party asserting laches must show it has been materially prejudiced by the other person’s delay” (citing the same case).

On this last point, the trial court found that SVT failed to provide evidence demonstrating how Respondents’ delay affected them financially or made them liable if the walking trail were not completed. Since SVT was not able to prove material prejudice due to Respondents’ delay, the appeals court agreed with the trial court that the doctrine of laches did not apply. Respondents were not barred from making a claim.

Get Legal Help from Gem McDowell and His Team

The South Carolina Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decision granting declaratory relief. The court found that the rights to the properties reverted to the property owners (Respondents) at the time the railroad was abandoned and the easements terminated.

Note that it wasn’t until the property owners took legal action that they secured their rights again. If you are in a similar situation looking to regain full rights to your property after the termination of an easement, don’t expect it to happen automatically. You will likely have to take affirmative action to regain your rights just like Respondents did in this case.

For help with easements and more, contact attorney Gem McDowell at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Myrtle Beach and Mt. Pleasant, SC. Gem has over 30 years of experience handling legal matters in South Carolina, including easement disputes commercial real estate, business law, and estate planning. Call Gem and his team to schedule a free consultation at 843-284-1021 or fill out this form today.