Carolina Chloride v. SCDOT

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Carolina Chloride, Inc., Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Transportation,
Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001440

Appeal From Richland County
Joseph M. Strickland, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-063
Submitted January 1, 2018 – Filed February 7, 2018

AFFIRMED

Christian Stegmaier and Kelsey Jan Brudvig, both of
Collins & Lacy, PC, of Columbia, and Edward D.
Sullivan, of Sullivan Law Firm, PC, of Columbia, all for
Appellant.

Beacham O. Brooker, Jr., of Brooker Law Offices LLC,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Carolina Chloride appeals the Master-in-Equity's order granting
the South Carolina Department of Transportation's motion to dismiss. On appeal,
Carolina Chloride argues the Master erred in finding (1) Carolina Chloride's
property did not abut Farrow Road and (2) Carolina Chloride failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether Carolina Chloride's property did not abut Farrow Road: Temple v.
Tec-Fab, Inc., 381 S.C. 597, 599-600, 675 S.E.2d 414, 415 (2009) ("In an action at
law tried without a jury, an appellate court's scope of review extends merely to the
correction of errors of law. The [c]ourt will not disturb the [Master]'s findings
unless they are found to be without evidence that reasonably supports those
findings."); Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 391 S.C. 429, 435,
706 S.E.2d 501, 504 (2011) ("The elements of an action for an inverse
condemnation are: (1) affirmative conduct of a government entity; (2) the conduct
effects a taking; and (3) the taking is for a public use."); id. ("A plaintiff's right to
recovery in an inverse condemnation case is premised upon the ability to show that
he or she has suffered a taking."); id. ("A property owner in South Carolina has an
easement for access to and from any public road that abuts his property, regardless
whether he had additional access to and from another public road."); Mosteller v.
Cnty. of Lexington, 336 S.C. 360, 365, 520 S.E.2d 620, 623 (1999) ("'Abut' means
to be contiguous, or border on; to bound upon; to end, end at, or terminate, to join
at a border or boundary; to meet; to touch at the end or side." (quoting 1 C.J.S. at
397 (1985)).

2. As to whether Carolina Chloride failed to exhaust available administrative
remedies prior to filing suit: Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335
S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need not
review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the
appeal).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.