Timothy Judy v. Alice Soto

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

Timothy J. Judy and Dana A. Judy, Respondents,

v.

Alice Soto, Joseph B. Rodriguez, Matthew Rodriguez,
Gwen Rodriguez and Stephanie B. Wells, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000436

Appeal From Orangeburg County
James B. Jackson, Jr., Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-257
Heard June 12, 2024 – Filed July 17, 2024

AFFIRMED

Matthew Tillman, Esquire of Womble Bond Dickinson,
LLP, of Charleston, for Appellants.

Michael Pinckney Horger, Sr., of Michael P. Horger,
LLC, of Orangeburg, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: This case arises from a dispute over ownership of a sliver of land
between property owned by Timothy and Dana Judy (collectively, the Judys) and
property owned by Alice Soto. Soto and the other Appellants assert the master-in-
equity erred in finding the Judys own the disputed area. Appellants further
challenge the master's injunction requiring them to remove fence wiring and then
prohibiting them from entering the area. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

The Disputed Property lies between two parcels on Sleepy Hollow Road in
Orangeburg; one owned by the Judys (Lot 14), and one owned by Soto (Lot 1).
The Disputed Property is labeled Parcel A in a survey Soto obtained:

Both Lot 1 and Lot 14 were formerly owned by Lawrence Stroman, who inherited
many acres of land in Orangeburg and Calhoun Counties upon his father's death.
In 1951, Stroman conveyed Lot 1, described as "approximately one acre of land,"
to Dewey Edwards, who was married to Stroman's daughter, Betty. This property
was described as:

ALL that certain piece, parcel or lot of land, situate, lying
and being in New School District No. 7, County of
Orangeburg, State of South Carolina, containing about
one (1) acre, more or less, and located near the Calhoun-
Orangeburg County line, on a highway which connects
State Highway No. 176 and U.S. Highway 301, and
being bounded as follows: on the North and East by lands
of Kennerly's Estate; on the South by other lands of the
grantor herein, Lawrence E. Stroman; and on the West by
the said highway.

In 1974, Stroman conveyed sixty-one acres partially bordering Lot 1 to Betty. This
property was described as:

All that certain piece, parcel or tract of land, with the
buildings and improvements thereon, containing
sixty-one (61) acres, more or less, of which twenty-three
(23) acres, more or less, is situate, lying and being in
Orange Township, School District No. 2, County of
Orangeburg, State of South Carolina, and thirty-eight
(38) acres, more or less, is situate lying and being in
Lyons Township, School District No. 2, County of
Calhoun, State of South Carolina, and the entire tract is
bounded as follows: On the North by lands now or
formerly of Moody Rast; on the East by S.C. Highway
No. 468, lands now or formerly of Bardin, lands now or
formerly of Kennerly, lands now or formerly of Dantzler,
lands now or formerly of Kennerly, and lands now or
formerly of Edwards; on the South by lands now or
formerly of Kennerly, lands now or formerly of Edwards,
and lands now or formerly of Dantzler, and on the West
by lands now or formerly of Dantzler and lands now or
formerly of Evans. Being the same tract of land devised
to L. Edgar Stroman by Lewis A. Stroman who died
testate in the County of Orangeburg, S.C., on February 6,
1938, and the Will of Lewis A. Stroman and the
proceedings of estate are recorded in the office of the
Judge of Probate for Orangeburg County, S.C., in
Apartment 254, Package 12.

Between 2000 and 2009, various interests in Lot 1 were transferred among Dewey,
Betty, and their daughter, Janet Gaillard. In August 2009, Gaillard conveyed all of
her interest in Lot 1 to Dewey and Betty. Dewey and Betty then obtained a loan
secured by Lot 1, which included their residence and approximately one acre
surrounding the house.
On May 9, 2016, Dewey and Betty conveyed Lot 1 to Champion Mortgage
Company via a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Champion Mortgage sold Lot 1 to Soto
on May 27, 2016.

In 2018, Kevin Edwards, Dewey and Betty's son, arranged for Betty to exchange
some real property, Lot 14, for renovation work Timothy Judy performed on a
property Kevin was preparing to sell. This deed was recorded on March 16, 2018.

In 2020, the Judys sued Soto for slander of title, conversion, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress; the Judys further sought injunctive relief to prevent
Soto and others from entering their property. Soto answered and counterclaimed
for trespass. In 2022, Soto asserted additional counterclaims for conversion and to
quiet title in response to the Judys' amended complaint. Soto claimed she acquired
title to the Disputed Property from Champion Mortgage in 2016 and asked that the
court declare her the owner of the parcel.

At the hearing before the master, Timothy Judy testified he acquired his primary
residence on Sleepy Hollow Road from Kevin Edwards. Judy later acquired Lot
14 (1.32 acres across the street from his primary residence) from Kevin's mother,
Betty. Judy noted Appellant Rodriguez put up wiring after Soto learned Judy was
having the area surveyed. Soto knew Judy was obtaining the survey because he
told her he was acquiring the property from Betty and proposed making their
property lines straighter. When Soto responded that she was not interested in
straightening the lines, Judy went forward with the survey and then "left the line as
[Don Smith] surveyed it"—along an old ditch line between Lots 1 and 14. The
ditch is now covered, and "the property line is actually on top of the culvert pipes
or the drainage pipes from the road culvert all the way to the ditch in the back of
the woods." Judy noted that he planted shrubbery along the property line
delineated by surveyor Smith; he also identified a 2017 tax office aerial photo of
the property showing the property line running from the culvert down the ditch
line. Judy acknowledged he was aware of a potential dispute over another .2 acres
between his shrubbery and Soto's home but stated he did not dispute ownership of
this area because it did not bother him. Betty had quitclaimed any interest she had
in that small area over to Soto, and Judy made no claim to that property.

Kevin testified his parents mortgaged Lot 1, which contained their residence and
approximately one surrounding acre; he further explained Lot 1 was separated
from the Edwards's larger, pasture property by the old ditch line. Kevin's
grandfather granted his parents "one (1) acre, more or less" on which to build their
home, and historically, that property line was the ditch line. Kevin testified that
although his father legally owned Lot 1 and his mother owned Lot 14, they used
both properties together as one farm, and he grew up in the house on Lot 1. The
dividing line was not an issue until the current dispute, and Kevin admitted he was
unaware of any historical deed or survey referencing the ditch as the property line.

Kevin testified the deed in lieu transferring Lot 1 from his parents to Champion
Mortgage would have included his parents' house and the acre surrounding it, with
the property line running along the old ditch as it always had. Kevin identified this
as the same property Champion sold to Soto. He noted the quitclaim deed from his
mother to Soto did not include any of the Judys' property and addressed a tiny
parcel of land on the northeast side between Lots 1 and 14.

Kevin believed the parcels were never surveyed because his parents also owned the
surrounding property. Kevin asked Smith to survey the lots when he arranged to
trade some of his mother's land to Timothy Judy in exchange for Judy's work on a
house Kevin owned. Kevin told Smith that Soto's property should have been the
approximately one-acre containing the house; he also told Smith that Soto wanted
her property to look like the tax map. Kevin testified Smith followed the culvert
along the old ditch line separating the home property—Lot 1—from the pasture
property—Lot 14—in finding the property line. Kevin identified the line on
Smith's survey as the old ditch line separating the two properties. He noted the
aerial photos from 2007 and 2017 do not match because they show different
property lines. He explained the difference in the maps appeared to be on the back
side of the property the Judys claimed to own—with it being a triangle rather than
a four-sided parcel. Kevin stated there had been previous issues with aerial
surveys from the tax assessor's office being inaccurate, such as listing the wrong
owner on a map after a different purchaser bought forty-one acres across the street.

Kevin hired an attorney to prepare documentation for the transfer of Lot 14 from
Betty to the Judys; he testified he was unaware of the subsequent quitclaim deed
between Betty and Soto until after this litigation began.

On cross-examination, Kevin admitted he previously listed Lot 1 for sale, but he
did not recall advertising the property as two acres. Thus, Soto sought to admit the
prior Zillow listing into evidence. The Judys successfully objected, arguing the
listing was irrelevant because at the time of that listing, Betty still owned all of the
property and could sell as many of her acres as she chose.

Soto testified she moved to Orangeburg in 2016 to buy a home for her retirement.
She recalled a conversation with Kevin in which he wanted "to make sure that I
knew that beyond the picket fence, I owned nothing." On cross-examination, Soto
testified Kevin told her she did not own anything beyond her own link fence,
which ran parallel to her home along the back side of the property. She denied
ever having a conversation with Kevin or with Timothy Judy about the property
line between Lots 1 and 14, but she admitted she asked a surveyor to prepare a plat
for her. In her opinion, both her surveyor and Judys' surveyor were "incorrect."

The master found the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 14 is the old ditch line,
and the Judys own the Disputed Property. The master noted he considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the boundary line because he could not ascertain
Lawrence Stroman's intent when he conveyed property to Dewey Edwards in 1951,
or when he later conveyed property to Betty in 1974. The master recognized the
purpose of the various aerial photographs was to identify property for county tax
purposes, not to establish legal title. He found Kevin's testimony most persuasive
because Kevin had been familiar with both properties for over fifty years. The
master further held the quitclaim deed could not have transferred ownership of the
Disputed Property to Soto because Betty executed it after she had already
conveyed Lot 14 to the Judys. The master noted Soto seemed more concerned
with the property line along the roadway in front of her house—rather than the line
between Lots 1 and 14—and she "offered no evidence of what she understood was
the boundary on the disputed side."

The master ordered Soto to remove the encroaching wiring and fence posts within
thirty days. The order further provides that after this thirty-day period, Appellants
are prohibited from entering the Disputed Property. Failure to comply with the
terms of the order subjects an offending party to contempt, with potential penalties
of imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of up to one thousand dollars.

Standard of Review

Normally, an action to quiet title to property is an action
in equity. However, the character, as legal or equitable,
of an action is determined by the complaint in its main
purpose, the nature of the issues as raised by the
pleadings or the pleadings and proof, and the character of
the relief sought under them.

Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 10, 681 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct. App. 2009).
"A boundary dispute is an action at law and the location of a disputed boundary
line is a question of fact." Jordan v. Judy, 413 S.C. 341, 347, 776 S.E.2d 96, 100
(Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Bodiford v. Spanish Oak Farms, Inc., 317 S.C. 539, 544,
455 S.E.2d 194, 197 (Ct. App.1995)). "In an action at law tried without a jury, the
appellate court will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless there is no
evidence to reasonably support them." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Walls, 433
S.C. 206, 212, 858 S.E.2d 150, 153 (2021) (quoting Bell v. Progressive Direct Ins.
Co., 407 S.C. 565, 576, 757 S.E.2d 399, 404 (2014)). "However, an appellate
court may make its own determination on questions of law and need not defer to
the trial court's rulings in this regard." Id. (quoting S.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Kennedy, 398 S.C. 604, 610, 730 S.E.2d 862, 864 (2012)).

I. Ownership of the Disputed Property

Appellants contend the master erred in failing to ascertain the intent of the original
grantor of Lot 1, in basing his ruling entirely on Kevin's testimony, and in
declining to admit Kevin's prior Zillow listing. We disagree.

When determining boundaries, resort is generally had
first to natural boundaries, next to artificial monuments,
then to adjacent boundaries, and last to courses and
distances. This rule, however, merely indicates the
weight generally given to each type of evidence of
location. The rule does not provide an order of
admissibility, such that evidence of artificial boundaries
is admissible only if there is no evidence of natural
boundaries. The rules for determining disputed
boundaries are not inflexible, but are subject to
modification depending upon the particular facts of each
case. The facts of a case may therefore require that an
inferior means of location be preferred over a higher
means of location.

Danley Williams v. Moore, 400 S.C. 90, 103–04, 733 S.E.2d 224, 231 (Ct. App.
2012) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bodiford, 317 S.C. at 544 n.1, 455
S.E.2d at 197 n.1).

Here, the record contains evidence supporting the master's finding that the old
ditch line is the property line between Lots 1 and 14. Kevin's testimony supports
this finding, and Soto recognized the Edwards family's knowledge of the property
boundaries when cross-examining Judy:

Q. And regarding any prior use of the boundaries
between the property Ms. Soto claims and the property
you claim, the best person to talk about that would be the
former owners which would be the Edwards family;
correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you agree with that?

A. Yes.

Kevin's testimony is compelling because he was most familiar with the property:
he grew up in the house on Soto's property, and the surrounding land had been in
his family for decades. The deed conveying Lot 14 to the Judys indicates Lot 14
was part of the larger tract Stroman conveyed to Betty in 1974. Kevin explained
the house property—Soto's Lot 1—was approximately one acre, and it was divided
from the larger, pasture property by the ditch line. Moreover, we note that a ditch,
even though now covered, is akin to a natural boundary, and this court gives great
weight to natural boundaries in determining property boundaries. See Danley
Williams, 400 S.C. at 104, 733 S.E.2d at 231 (recognizing that in disputes over
property boundaries, the most weight is given to "to natural boundaries, next to
artificial monuments, then to adjacent boundaries, and last to courses and
distances" (quoting Bodiford, 317 S.C. at 543 n.1, 455 S.E.2d at 197 n.1)). As the
ditch is now covered, the master gave proper weight to the culvert—an artificial
monument—in his boundary analysis. See id. At the hearing before the master,
Appellants provided no conclusive evidence of any boundary to support their
argument that Soto owns the Disputed Property. 1 Accordingly, we affirm the
master's findings that the property boundary is the old ditch line and that the Judys
own the Disputed Property.

1
Like the master, we reject the historical tax maps as conclusive evidence for
purposes of this boundary dispute. The tax maps were prepared for municipal tax
purposes, not to establish dispositive boundaries; at least one of the aerial maps
purporting to depict this area conflicts with others; and testimony established prior
county tax map inaccuracies such as listing the wrong owner of a nearby parcel.
II. Injunction

Appellants next assert the master erred in granting the Judys an injunction
requiring Appellants to remove encroaching wiring and fence posts and then
enjoining them from entering the Disputed Property. As Appellants' only
argument on this point is that the injunctive relief is predicated on an erroneous
ownership finding, we decline to further address this issue. See Futch v.
McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598
(1999) (recognizing an appellate court need not address remaining issues when
resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

III. Contempt of Court Penalty

Finally, Appellants contend the master violated their constitutional rights by
issuing a prospective criminal sanction without finding any order had been
violated. Appellants assert they "have the right to defend themselves, and to
contest actual contempt charges." However, no party has been found to be in
contempt. The master's order merely provides the potential sanctions Appellants
could face should they violate the court's order—any constitutional issue that might
arise during a potential contempt proceeding is hypothetical at this point. Thus,
this issue is not ripe for review. See Colleton Cnty. Taxpayers Ass'n v. Sch. Dist. of
Colleton Cnty., 371 S.C. 224, 242, 638 S.E.2d 685, 694 (2006) (holding "an issue
that is contingent, hypothetical, or abstract is not ripe for judicial review"); Encore
Tech. Grp., LLC v. Trask, 436 S.C. 289, 309, 871 S.E.2d 608, 619 (Ct. App. 2021)
("An argument is not ripe if it is contingent on future events."); Sloan v. Greenville
County, 356 S.C. 531, 552, 590 S.E.2d 338, 349 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The function of
appellate courts is not to give opinions on merely abstract or theoretical matters,
but only to decide actual controversies injuriously affecting the rights of some
party to the litigation.").

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the order of the master in equity is

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and VERDIN, JJ., concur.