3D Land Holdings, LLC v. Willis Johnson

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

3D Land Holdings, LLC, Respondent,

v.

Willis J. Johnson, Virginia Smith, Marcella Coachman,
Toni Owens, Brandon L. Carr and Henry Lee Green,
Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001145

Appeal From Georgetown County
Joe M. Crosby, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-255
Submitted April 1, 2024 – Filed July 17, 2024

REVERSED AND VACATED

Cynthia Ranck Person, of Keep It Green Advocacy, Inc.,
of Pawleys Island, for Appellants.

Daniel W. Stacy, Jr., of Pawleys Island, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this property dispute, Brandon L. Carr, Marcella Coachman,
Henry Lee Green, Willis J. Johnson, Toni Owens, and Virginia Smith (collectively,
the Coachman Family) appeal the master-in-equity's order granting 3D Land
Holdings, LLC (3D) a prescriptive easement for right of access to a dirt road on the
Coachman Family's property. We reverse and vacate the master's order.

"A party seeking a default judgment is entitled to only such relief as is framed by
his pleading, and then only to the extent requested therein." Mut. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n v. McKenzie, 274 S.C. 630, 632, 266 S.E.2d 423, 424 (1980). "It follows that
if a complaint fails to state a cause of action, the rendering of a default judgment
thereon is without authority of law and therefore reversible error." Id.

[T]he default does not admit that the facts pleaded are
sufficient to constitute a cause of action, as the effect of
the confession is limited to the material issuable facts
well pleaded in the declaration or complaint. Nor does it
admit an allegation which constitutes a mere conclusion
of law. The facts pleaded must accordingly be sufficient
to form a legal basis for the judgment taken by default, or
it will be reversed on appeal or set aside on proper
application.

Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer & Chem. Co., 89 S.C. 483, 488, 72 S.E. 15, 17 (1911)
(quoting Gillian v. Gillian, 65 S.C. 129, 43 S.E. 386 (1903)).

We find 3D's complaint insufficiently alleges claims for an easement by necessity
or by prescription. See Beverly v. Grand Strand Reg'l Med. Ctr., LLC, 435 S.C.
594, 598, 869 S.E.2d 812, 815 (2022) ("Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to assert by
motion the defense that a claim 'fail[s] to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause
of action.'" (quoting Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP)). Viewing the facts in a light most
favorable to 3D, the complaint, at most, alleges that 3D's immediate
predecessor-in-title obtained title to the property in October 2019; the thirty-foot
road provides the only means of access to the property; that "said means of access
has been utilized for many years"; and that 3D has utilized the road since acquiring
the property in 2021 and such use has not been challenged by the Coachman
Family. Considering the elements required to assert either type of easement, 3D's
complaint fails to plead a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. See
Boyd v. Bellsouth Tel. Tel. Co., 369 S.C. 410, 418–19, 633 S.E.2d 136, 140–41
(2006) ("The party asserting the right of an easement by necessity must
demonstrate: (1) unity of title, (2) severance of title, and (3) necessity."); Paine
Gayle Props., LLC v. CSX Transp., Inc., 400 S.C. 568, 589, 735 S.E.2d 528, 539
(Ct. App. 2012) ("To establish unity of title, the owner of the dominant estate must
show that his land and that of the owner of the servient estate once belonged to the
same person." (quoting Kennedy v. Bedenbaugh, 352 S.C. 56, 60, 572 S.E.2d 452,
454 (2002))); Simmons v. Berkeley Elec. Coop., Inc., 419 S.C. 223, 233, 797
S.E.2d 387, 392 (2016) ("In order to establish a prescriptive easement, the claimant
must identify the thing enjoyed, and show his use has been open, notorious,
continuous, uninterrupted, and contrary to the true property owner's rights for a
period of twenty years." (emphases added)); Bundy v. Shirley, 412 S.C. 292, 306,
772 S.E.2d 163, 170 (2015) ("[A] claimant seeking a prescriptive easement must
be held to a strict standard of proof." (emphasis added)); id. ("[A] party claiming a
prescriptive easement has the burden of proving all elements by clear and
convincing evidence." (emphasis added)); Carolina Ctr. Bldg. Corp. v. Enmark
Stations, Inc., 433 S.C. 144, 155, 857 S.E.2d 16, 22 (Ct. App. 2021) ("To satisfy
the twenty-year prescriptive period, the claimant can tack his use to use by prior
owners, provided the prior owners' use also satisfies the prescriptive easement
elements." (emphasis added)). Therefore, we reverse the master's order and vacate
the granted declaratory relief of a prescriptive easement to 3D. See McKenzie, 274
S.C. at 632, 266 S.E.2d at 424 ("It follows that if a complaint fails to state a cause
of action, the rendering of a default judgment thereon is without authority of law
and therefore reversible error.").

REVERSED AND VACATED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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