What is Inverse Condemnation? How Is It Different from Eminent Domain?
Let’s say a government agency undertakes a construction project that affects your ability to fully enjoy your property and reduces its value, which constitutes a “taking” on the part of the government. If the government acknowledges this taking before beginning construction and pays you just compensation for the use of your property, it has exercised its powers of eminent domain.
But what if the government doesn’t acknowledge the taking and doesn’t pay just compensation? This is where you might have a claim for inverse condemnation.
The concept of eminent domain – wherein the government has the right to use and take private property for the public good – is widely known. Less well known is the related concept of inverse condemnation. But property owners should be aware of what inverse condemnation is and when they may have a claim for it.
What is Inverse Condemnation? How is Inverse Condemnation Different from Eminent Domain?
“An inverse condemnation occurs when a government agency commits a taking of private property without exercising its formal powers of eminent domain,” in the words of the South Carolina Court of Appeals as quoted by the SC Supreme Court in Ray v City of Rock Hill, the case discussed below. (Find it here.)
In both eminent domain (also called condemnation) and inverse condemnation, the government takes or uses private property for the public good. The difference is that in eminent domain, the government initiates the process and pays the property owner just compensation for the taking. In inverse condemnation cases, the property owner initiates an action against the government agency because it did not declare a taking nor compensate the property owner accordingly.
What Forms the Basis of an Inverse Condemnation Claim? Examples of Inverse Condemnation
The classic example of eminent domain is when the government takes a piece of land in order to build a highway or public utility on it. But the taking doesn’t have to be physical to form the basis for an inverse condemnation claim. In fact, in inverse condemnation claims, it often isn’t.
The two most common broad categories of inverse condemnation claims are physical takings and regulatory takings. Physical takings include physical intrusion, damage to the property, and restriction of access, in addition to outright seizure. Regulatory takings involve government regulations and zoning ordinances that hamper a property owner’s ability to fully use and enjoy their property.
Examples of bases of inverse condemnation claims include:
- The city builds a sewage plant on the lot next to the property, reducing its value
- Government aircraft regularly flying so low that it disturbs the property
- DOT removes the property’s access to a highway it depends on for business
- A government project that leads to runoff, contaminating the property
- Noise pollution from a freeway built next to the property
- Restrictive zoning ordinances that prevent the property’s owner from developing it to its fullest potential
In inverse condemnation claims, the burden of proof is on the property owner. The property owner will sue the government agency and try to prove to the court that a taking did occur. If the court agrees, the property owner can then seek damages.
Inverse Condemnation in South Carolina
Property owners are entitled to just compensation when the government takes private property for public use. This protection is found in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution – “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” – as well as in Article I, Section 13 of the South Carolina Constitution and in South Carolina Code Title 28.
Previous court cases in the state have established the following criteria for showing inverse condemnation:
- An affirmative, positive, aggressive act on the part of the governmental agency;
- A taking;
- The taking is for public use; and
- The taking has some degree of permanence”
The expression “affirmative, positive, aggressive act” is key here. It is not enough for the government to simply not act; it must take action that constitutes a taking of the property.
The issue of whether the City of Rock Hill in South Carolina committed an “affirmative, positive, aggressive act” was central to the case of Ray v City of Rock Hill, which the SC Supreme Court heard in 2021.
Ray v City of Rock Hill Background
In 1985, Lucille H. Ray bought a house and lot in Rock Hill on College Avenue (the Property). Before the house was built in the 1920s, someone installed a 24-inch terra cotta pipe (the Pipe) underground on the Property. In addition, three City of Rock Hill stormwater pipes nearby collect and transport water from the neighborhood and bring it to a catch basin located directly in front of the Property on College Avenue. The Pipe is connected to this catch basin, and it channels stormwater from the catch basin to the back of the Property. It has done this for approximately 100 years since the Pipe was installed.
Unsurprisingly, all of this water has affected the Property over time. Ray reported that she saw her gardener fall into a sinkhole up to the waist in 1992, and later she became aware of bending and movement in her home’s roof frame and hired a contractor to fix the problem in 1995 and again in 2007. In 2008, Ray noticed that her front porch steps were sinking. She contacted the City about it and an employee told her about the Pipe. (The court notes there was no record of an easement for piping water under the Property.)
Did the City Commit an Affirmative, Positive, Aggressive Act?
It wasn’t until November 6, 2012 that Ray sued the City for inverse condemnation. She alleged that the Pipe was deteriorating and the water running through it, which came from the catch basin, was the cause of her home’s foundation problems. Coincidentally, right around this time the City began a sewer maintenance project (the Sewer Project). The City dug up part of College Avenue in front of the Property and severed the three stormwater pipes connected to the catch basin in order to reach a sewer line underneath.
Ray’s attorney then wrote to the City demanding that the City not reconnect the three stormwater pipes it had severed during the Sewer Project. That action would begin bringing water flowing again into the catch basin, which would be funneled to the back of the Property by the Pipe.
But the City did reconnect the three pipes. Ray believes this was an “affirmative, positive, aggressive act” by the City. The SC Supreme Court agreed.
The Twist in This Case
The City argued that Ray missed the three-year statute of limitations to bring a claim. In 2008, she noticed her front porch steps sinking and called the City about it, but it wasn’t until 2012 that she filed suit. The court agree that Ray should have reasonably known in 2008 that she had a claim. That means that she missed the three-year cutoff because she didn’t initiate a claim by 2011.
But here’s the twist in the case, as the court calls it. The Sewer Project happened to commence soon after Ray filed her lawsuit against the City. When it reconnected the three pipes, it began the flow of water from the catch basin via the Pipe onto the Property anew. The court determined that Ray can only recover compensation for damage done to the Property after the City reconnected the three stormwater pipes. The SC Supreme Court remanded the case back to circuit court to determine whether such damage did occur.
Help with Commercial Real Estate
Inverse condemnation claims can be challenging to win. You can see that in the case above, it went all the way to the Supreme Court of South Carolina as each court came to different conclusions about whether the claim was legitimate or not. But sometimes bringing an inverse condemnation claim is the only way to get just compensation for a government’s taking of your property.
Real estate law is complex. For help with legal commercial real estate issues, contact attorney Gem McDowell of the Gem McDowell Law Group. He helps businesses in South Carolina with a variety of legal matters including acquisition and sales, financing, land use planning and development, title search review, and regulatory, zoning, and environmental issues review. (Note that Gem advises on matters of inverse condemnation but does not handle such cases start to finish.) Call Gem and his team at the office in Mt. Pleasant, SC to schedule a free consultation today at 843-284-1021.
Is Promissory Estoppel Subject to Statute of Limitations in South Carolina?
Thomerson v. DeVito came to the Supreme Court of South Carolina on certification from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, as the U.S. District Court needed a matter of South Carolina law settled before it was able to issue a full judgment in the case. (Read the SC Supreme Court’s opinion here.)
The certified question is: “Does the three-year statute of limitations of S.C. Code Ann 15-3-530 apply to claims for promissory estoppel?”
First let’s briefly look at the background of the case, then at what promissory estoppel is, and finally at how the court answered the question and the reasoning behind it.
Thomerson v. DeVito
Johnny Thomerson was hired at Lenco Marine, a boat products manufacturer, and stated that in employment negotiations he (along with another employee) discussed getting ownership interest in the company as part of his compensation package. Richard DeVito, president of Lenco at the time, said they’d “work on that as we go down the road,” and the subject was dropped.
A few years later, in early 2009, DeVito told Thomerson and the other employee that Lenco was buying back 15% interest from a minority shareholder, and the plan was to distribute those shares in equal 3% amounts to five separate employees. Thomerson stated that he believed the shares would be issued when the buyback occurred.
But by 2011, Thomerson still hadn’t received any shares. He asked DeVito about it, who said he didn’t want to distribute shares while the company was involved in a lawsuit. By 2013, the lawsuit had been settled, but DeVito continued to put Thomerson off about the ownership shares. (By this time, the other employee had left the company, without ever receiving the promised 3% interest.) In 2016, DeVito finally admitted he was not going to fulfill the promise he made to Thomerson to give him 3% ownership interest in the company.
In 2018, Thomerson brought a lawsuit against DeVito and Samuel Mullinax, CEO of Lenco at the time in question (collectively, the Defendants), in federal district court. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all but one of Thomerson’s many claims on the basis that they were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the three years started counting down in 2013 after the lawsuit against Lenco was settled and DeVito still refused to give Thomerson the promised ownership interest. To be in time, Thomerson should have filed by 2016, but he didn’t bring suit until 2018.
The one claim the district court didn’t grant summary judgment on was Thomerson’s claim of promissory estoppel, as it was unclear whether the statute of limitations applies to promissory estoppel in South Carolina.
What is Promissory Estoppel?
First, what is promissory estoppel? Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that says a promise is enforceable by law when the person making the promise goes back on their word to the detriment of the person they made the promise to. This is true even when there’s no valid written agreement memorializing the promise. When it’s enforced, the promiser must follow through on their promise, or somehow make it up to the wronged party if the promise can no longer be kept.
In the Thomerson case, DeVito promised Thomerson a 3% share of ownership in the company but went back on his word. So when Lenco Marine was sold to another company in 2016, Thomerson didn’t see any money from the sale because he never received the ownership interest he was promised.
Since Thomerson’s five other claims were barred by the district court, promissory estoppel was the only claim left that could bring him relief – if the Supreme Court of South Carolina determined that the statute of limitations is not applicable to promissory estoppel.
Is Promissory Estoppel Subject to Statute of Limitations in South Carolina?
No. The Supreme Court of South Carolina determined that promissory estoppel is not subject to the three-year statute of limitations in the state.
Most of the opinion is the legal reasoning and discussion behind this conclusion, which is too detailed to cover fully on this blog, but here are some of the main points.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has recognized that the statute of limitations applies to actions at law (that is, where legal relief is sought, often monetary damages), while laches applies to suits in equity (that is, where equitable relief is sought, such as an injunction or specific performance, rather than monetary damages). Whether promissory estoppel is subject to the statute of limitations depends on whether it’s characterized as a legal or equitable claim.
The court ultimately reasons that it’s an equitable claim, which is subject to laches rather than the statute of limitations. This is true even if in certain cases the relief being sought is monetary. For instance, in Thomerson, the equitable remedy of enforcing the promise by making the Defendants give Thomerson 3% ownership interest in the company is impossible because the company has already been sold. The fair remedy now would be monetary damages to make up for what Thomerson would have received in the sale had he originally been given the 3% he was promised.
Legal Help with Contract Law and Business Law in South Carolina
Though promissory estoppel can be enforced in some circumstances even when a written contract isn’t present, it’s always best to get things in writing to protect your interests. For help with contracts and other business matters, including governance documents, business planning, business acquisition, and commercial real estate transactions, contact Gem McDowell of the Gem McDowell Law Group. Gem has over 30 years of experience solving problems and advising his clients to protect their business interests.
Gem and his associates serve clients in the Charleston area and across South Carolina. Call the Mt. Pleasant office today to schedule your free, no-obligation consultation at 843-284-1021.
Get It in Writing – It’s the Law
Please be advised that the Court assumed for purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment that all the facts the Plaintiff (Kagan) alleged were true in the light most favorable to him and without consideration of the Defendants Simchons’ version of the events to form the basis for their legal analysis.
Have you heard that oral contracts are legally binding? While many verbal agreements are valid and can be upheld in court, that’s not always the case. South Carolina law requires written contracts for certain types of agreements, and without evidence in writing, the contract cannot legally be enforced.
Still, some people, either not knowing the law or not seeing the need for a written contract, go ahead with a deal in good faith based on a verbal agreement and a handshake.
Jeffrey S. Kagan did so, lending large amounts of money on handshake deals, in a case (Kagan v Simchon) that was heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2019.
Can you guess how it turned out for him?
Lending Money Without a Written Contract
Kagan had a close relationship with Renee Simchon, the respondent in the case, and her husband, Sam. Kagan worked as an independent contractor for many years for Sam’s company, Bay Island Sportswear, Inc., which was next door to Simchon’s realty company, Greenwood Realty, in Greenwood, SC.
Over the years, Kagan occasionally loaned them money, including $129,000 in June 2009 (First Loan), $210,000 in October 2010 (Second Loan), and $52,000 in November 2013 (Third Loan). Kagan later stated that the agreements for the First Loan and Third Loan were not reduced to writing, but stated there was written evidence of the Second Loan.
Simchon used the money from the Second Loan to pay off a mortgage she held for one of her clients, and the plan was to repay the principal when the property was sold. Instead, after the sale of the property, Simchon wrote Kagan a check for $31,616.46 and gave the remaining $180,000 to her husband Sam to invest on Kagan’s behalf. Kagan later stated in a deposition that he did not authorize that transfer of money to Sam.
Kagan also believed that from this point, the First Loan and Second Loan were consolidated. When he made the Third Loan, he stated he believed that it was also consolidated with the first two. Again, this consolidation was not put down in writing, and was done on the basis of “a handshake, a look in the eye and a personal relationship.”
Sam made periodic payments until November 2013. In April 2014, Kagan’s employment with Sam’s shop was terminated.
Taking It to the Courts
In August 2015, Kagan filed summons and complaint seeking repayment on all three loans, alleging breach of contract and other actions. In response, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
The case was heard in circuit court in February 2016, in which Kagan’s claims regarding the First Loan and the Third Loan were dismissed after he admitted that the terms of these loans had not been reduced to writing. The case was heard again in circuit court in January 2017 after some claims were dismissed and Simchon remained as the only defendant. This time, the Second Loan was dismissed for the same reason; despite Kagan claiming that there was written evidence of the Second Loan, he was not able to produce it.
Without written evidence of the terms of the loans, the court was not able to enforce Kagan’s claims for repayment, citing Section 37-10-107 of South Carolina Code:
No person may maintain an action for legal or equitable relief […] to lend or borrow money; […] or […] to renew, modify, amend, or cancel a loan of money […] involving in any such case a principal amount in excess of fifty thousand dollars, unless the party seeking to maintain the action or defense has received a writing from the party to be charged containing the material terms and conditions of the […] agreement and the party to be charged, or its duly authorized agent, has signed the writing.
In short, if you make a business deal that involves lending, borrowing, renewing, modifying, amending, or canceling a loan over $50,000, you must have the agreement written down and signed to be legally enforceable. (Note that this does not apply to “a loan of money used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,” per 37-10-107(3)(a).)
The circuit court thus granted Simchon’s motion for summary judgment. The case was appealed and heard by the SC Court of Appeals in May 2019.
The Statute of Frauds in South Carolina
The circuit court cited the statute of frauds (SOF) as the reason for barring or dismissing Kagan’s claims. SOF requires that certain types of agreements be written down and signed to be enforceable. The concept comes from common law and is present in every state in one form or another.
In South Carolina, the statute of frauds is found in SC Code Title 32 Chapter 3. Agreements that must be reduced to writing and signed by an authorized party are those:
- Requiring an executor or administrator to pay damages from their own estate
- Requiring a person to pay the debt of another
- Made in the consideration of marriage (i.e., prenuptial agreements)
- Involving the contract or sale of land
- That take longer than a year to perform
In addition, Section 36-2-201(1) requires a contract recording the sale of goods valued over $500 in order for any related action to be enforceable, and, as seen above, Section 37-10-107 requires written evidence to enforce actions on lending or borrowing $50,000 or more in business deals, or making changes to the agreement related to it.
Kagan argued that the circuit court erred because Simchon used the money from the Second Loan to pay off a mortgage that was in her name – not that of her realty company – therefore making it a personal loan that wasn’t subject to 37-10-107.
The SC Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that even if the mortgage was in her own name, the money was “used” (the word in the statute, the court notes) on behalf of a client in the course of business, making it subject to 37-10-107. The Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court’s finding that Kagan’s claim with respect to the Second Loan was therefore barred.
The Statute of Limitations in South Carolina
The circuit court found that Kagan’s breach of contract claim was barred because of the statute of limitations (SOL), or the time allowed by law in which to bring a legal claim. Kagan argued that the circuit court erred, saying that Sam’s payments on the loans tolled the statute of limitations until the payments stopped.
“Tolling” means pausing or delaying the time left on the SOL. Tolling may allow someone to bring a lawsuit even after the SOL has seemingly run out.
However, in this case, the appeals court did not agree that the SOL was tolled, as that would have depended on the loans being consolidated. If you remember, Kagan stated that he believed all three loans were consolidated. He also stated that the terms of the consolidation were never written down – and that’s the problem.
The appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s finding, again citing 37-10-107, which states (as discussed above) that any amendment or modification to a loan over $50,000 must be in writing to be enforceable. Without the terms in writing, there is no tolling of the SOL.
The SOL therefore began when Simchon breached their agreement by failing to transfer the remainder of the money from the sale of the property to Kagan. This happened on March 21, 2011, and since the SOL for a breach of contract claim in South Carolina is three years, Kagan had until March 21, 2014 to file. He didn’t until August 2015, nearly a year and a half after the SOL had run out.
Get Help with Your Contracts
The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order to grant summary judgment to Simchon. Unfortunately for Kagan, he wasn’t able to use the force of the law to help him recover the outstanding money he was owed. This could have been avoided had he gotten everything in writing.
Contracts exist for a reason, and a correctly written one can save you time, money, and heartache. Don’t rely on a handshake or the goodwill you have with another party when making a deal, especially when there’s a substantial amount of money on the line. Work with an attorney to ensure that your interests are looked after and protected.
Business attorney Gem McDowell of the McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC, serves clients in the greater Charleston area and the state of South Carolina. He and his associates can help you with contracts, business creation and planning, commercial real estate, and more. To make an appointment or to schedule a free 20-minute consultation with an attorney, call Gem and his team today at 843-284-1021.
