What Happens When Easements Are Abandoned?
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.
Knowing Your Property Rights: Easements and Trespassing
We’ve talked about easements before, when a party has limited legal rights to land owned by someone else. Examples of common easements include an individual’s right to enter someone’s property in order to gain access to a public area like a beach, or a utility company’s right to dig up a yard in order to lay pipes or cables.
Drainage easements are another common type. It’s this type of easement that was at the center of a South Carolina Court of Appeals case, Ralph v. McLaughlin, 2019, which we’ll look at today. This case shows how important it is to fully understand the limits and the extent of your property rights when an easement is – or historically has been – involved.
Ralph v. McLaughlin: Facts and Background
The background to this case is long and quite complex, and for the full story, you can read the court’s decision here.
It starts in 1984, when E. M. Seabrook prepared and recorded a plat of a section of Seabrook Island that contained lots 21 through 28. The plat records a 20-foot-wide drainage easement and no-build area across the back of those lots, plus a drainage easement running along the property line between lots 21 and 22 from the front to the back.
Fast forward decades later, and Richard and Eugenia Ralph (the Ralphs) own lot 23 and Paul Dennis and Susan Rode McLaughlin (the McLaughlins) own lot 22. The McLaughlins purchased the lot from Carroll and Lorraine Gantz, who had previously approached the Seabrook Island Property Owners Association (SIPOA) about eliminating the 20-foot drainage easement and no-build area on the back of their lot. The SIPOA agreed, and in September 2002 a new plat was drawn up, documenting that the drainage easement and no-build area were both abandoned with respect to lot 22.
In 2006, the McLaughlins wanted to build a house that would partially be built on the area of the drainage easement and no-build area. The SIPOA’s architectural review board agreed, with a number of stipulations.
This was followed by a lot of back and forth between the McLaughlins who wanted to remove the drainage pipe and begin construction, their neighbors who didn’t want the pipe removed for fear of flooding and drainage issues, and the SIPOA who wasn’t able to get all parties to come to an agreement. In October 2008, the SIPOA sent a letter saying it was out of options and was rescinding the previous resolution to abandon the easement.
The McLaughlins still insisted there was no easement and went ahead with the removal of the drainage pipe and construction of their building in late 2008. In fall 2011, the Ralphs filed a complaint seeking actual and punitive damages, alleging the McLaughlins’ actions led to flooding and poor drainage in the Ralphs’ yard. They said the loss of the drainage pipe meant they had severe flooding issues and the value of their house was significantly lower because of it. They also filed a trespass claim.
In May 2016, the matter went to trial and the jury in the circuit court found in favor of the plaintiff (the Ralphs), ordering the defendant (the McLaughlins) to pay $1,000 in nominal damages. The case came to the SC Court of Appeals, where it was ultimately reversed and remanded.
Rights, Abandonment, and Dominant Tenement Versus Servient Tenement
With respect to easements, a dominant tenement (or dominant estate) is the party gaining the benefit of the easement, while the servient tenement (or servient estate) is the party bearing the burden and/or granting the benefit of the easement. It’s understandable that in some instances, the servient tenement may not want to bear that burden anymore and want to free themselves of the easement. That’s what the McLaughlins’ predecessors-in-title did when they approached the SIPOA about removing the easement from their lot.
As stated above, the SIPOA agreed. But it was wrong to do so. It was not the SIPOA’s place to unilaterally abandon the easement, since other parties had special property interest in it – namely, the owners of lots 21-28 that benefitted from the drainage easement. To abandon the easement legally, it would require the agreement of all parties with property interest in it. That agreement was never sought, let alone attained.
Trespassing
Because the Ralphs had ownership interest in the drainage pipe that was part of the drainage easement, and because the dominant tenement had the right to have the pipe on the servient tenement’s property, Mr. McLaughlin trespassed when he removed the drainage pipe. Though the drainage pipe was in his yard, his actions were considered trespassing because he did not wholly own it and by removing it, he destroyed the easement. This was the basis of the Ralphs’ claim of trespass.
Mr. McLaughlin admitted he told the contractors to remove the drainage pipe and construct the building over part of the no-build area, and he didn’t get the Ralphs’ permission to do so. In its decision, the court states, “the owner of a servient estate commits trespass by intentionally destroying an easement without the consent of the easement holder.”
This case still isn’t settled, as the Court of Appeals remanded it back to the circuit court. The McLaughlins maintain that they were not subject to the easement because it had been abandoned by the SIPOA before they purchased their property. Yet the SIPOA didn’t have the authority to abandon the easement the way it did. The circuit court will need to determine, among other things, whether the McLaughlins owe compensatory or punitive damages to the Ralphs.
You Need to Know What You’re Getting
Things like easements come up during a title search, which is one reason it’s so vital to have a thorough title search done before purchasing a piece of real estate. You should also know what’s in the deed to the land you’re purchasing, whether you read it yourself or rely on your attorney to tell you what it contains. Interestingly, in this case Mr. McLaughlin said his real estate agent insisted the easement had been abandoned, but the deed to the land did specify that it was subject to the easement. If the McLaughlins were so intent on buying property without an easement, that should have been a red flag.
If you’re planning on purchasing commercial land in South Carolina, talk to commercial real estate attorney Gem McDowell. Gem has been practicing in South Carolina since 1992 and has closed several multi-million-dollar transactions for a total of more than $1 billion in real estate deals. He and his associates at the McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC can help you understand your rights, limits, and opportunities with respect to your land purchase and offer strategic advice to help you grow your business. Call 843-284-1021 today to schedule a free consultation to discuss your commercial real estate deal with Gem.
Ever Wondered Why That Storm Drain is in Your Yard?
Have you ever wondered why that storm drain or telephone pole is in your backyard, or why the telephone company can come dig up your yard and you can’t do anything to stop them?
The answer: Easements. An easement is a right someone has over land owned by someone else.
Many easements are documented (and will be discovered in a title search when buying a piece of property) but others are not. When a party makes a claim on a land without permission for an extended period of time, it may result in a “prescriptive easement.” It’s up to the property owner to take action against someone making a claim on their land to prevent such an easement from becoming established.
That’s the central legal issue in a case that recently was decided by the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in which a Johns Island man took utility companies to court for claims on his newly purchased land. Before getting into the case, let’s talk more about easements first.
What Easements Are
Some examples of common easements are:
- Right of railroad company to install railroad tracks
- Right of utility company to install electric lines, water mains, etc.
- Rights of way allowing others to enter or cross the property, for example to reach a beach or roadway
An example of a prescriptive easement may be when a trespasser gains rights to some land after occupying it in a manner determined by state statute.
These are examples of positive easements, which allows for something to happen. Negative easements prevent something from happening. For example, a light-and-air easement may prevent someone from building an addition to their house that would block the view of their neighbors.
How Prescriptive Easements Are Established in South Carolina
To establish a prescriptive easement in South Carolina, three things must be shown:
- There was continued and uninterrupted use for a period of twenty years,
- The identity of the thing enjoyed,
- The use was adverse under claim of right.
To show adverse use, the use of the land must have been enjoyed “openly, notoriously, continuously, and uninterruptedly, in derogation of another’s rights.”
What does it mean to use land “openly” and “notoriously”? That’s one of the main legal issues in the case in hand.
Simmons v Berkeley Electric Cooperative
Roosevelt Simmons bought two parcels of undeveloped wooded land on Johns Island in 2003. Two previous owners had granted easements to Berkeley Electric, one in 1956 and one in 1972, to construct and keep transmission lines on the property.
In 1977, Charleston County authorized St. John’s Water to put in a water main along the road, using an “encroachment permit,” and the water main was completed in 1978. In 2005, Simmons found a water meter under some bushes on his property. He contacted the water company, who said they would not move the water main.
Simmons took action against Berkeley Electric and St. John’s Water over trespassing and unjust enrichment. Both companies moved for summary judgment, a judicial procedure commonly used when parties agree on the facts of the case and want to avoid or simplify the trial process, and received a ruling in their favor. The case went to the Court of Appeals, which also determined that Berkeley Electric and St. John’s Water had rights to use Simmons’ property, as both had established prescriptive easements.
A request for the Court of Appeals to rehear the case was denied, and the case was taken up by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Failing the Test
In its decision (PDF), the Supreme Court agreed that Berkeley Electric had established a prescriptive easement. However, it didn’t agree that St. John’s Water had. That’s because St. John’s Water failed the “open, notoriously, continuously, and uninterruptedly” part of the test to establish a prescriptive easement.
Though the use was continuous and uninterrupted, it was not open and notorious. The water main was located in the ground and the water meter was discovered by Simmons under a bush, and therefore the use was not open. To be “notorious,” something “is actually known to the owner, or is widely known in the neighborhood.” The Court didn’t find clear and convincing evidence that neighbors or Simmons himself knew the location of the water main, which is what they would have had to prove.
Simmons did what any landowner who wants to protect their property rights should do – he took action. By ignoring someone else’s claim on your land, you may be helping them establish limited legal rights to it.
Contact Commercial Real Estate Attorney Gem McDowell About Your Property
Easements and property rights can be complex legal issues that need the advice of an experienced commercial real estate attorney. Gem McDowell has over 20 years of experience handling complex real estate transactions in South Carolina, including easements.
Call Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant to reach Gem so he can help you with your commercial real estate transaction today. Schedule your free initial consultation today by calling (843) 284-1021 or filling out this contact form online.
