Sessions v. Platt

CourtListener 10154228ScctappOct 26, 2011

Full text

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

James Emmett Sessions and Louise
Green Sessions, Respondents,

v.

Stephen Michael Platt, Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Patrick R. Watts, Master-in-Equity

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-473

Heard October 4, 2011 – Filed October 26, 2011   

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Paul B.
Ferrara, III, and George J. Morris, both of North Charleston, for Appellant.

Leonard R.
Jordan, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Stephen
Platt appeals the master in equity's order granting summary judgment to James
and Louise Sessions on their claims that Platt trespassed on their land and that
Platt's conduct on their land and on adjacent land created a nuisance.  We find
there are questions of fact as to whether, and to what extent, Platt had a
right to use the Sessions' land and as to whether Platt's use of the Sessions'
land and adjacent land was unreasonable.  See Hill v. Carolina Power
& Light Co., 204 S.C. 83, 96, 28 S.E.2d 545, 549 (1943) (stating the
holder of an easement has the right to use the easement in a manner that is
"reasonably necessary and convenient and as little burdensome to the
servient estate as possible for the use contemplated"); Ravan v.
Greenville Cnty., 315 S.C. 447, 464, 434 S.E.2d 296, 307 (Ct. App. 1993)
(stating in private nuisance claims, "reasonableness is ordinarily a
question of fact"); Alston v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., 308 S.C.
292, 294, 417 S.E.2d 631, 632 (Ct. App. 1992) ("[S]ummary judgment is
inappropriate if the facts are conflicting or the inferences to be drawn from
the facts are doubtful."); Lee v. Kelley, 298 S.C. 155, 158, 378
S.E.2d 616, 617 (Ct. App. 1989) ("Summary judgment is inappropriate when
further development of the facts is desirable to clarify the application of the
law.").  Accordingly, we reverse the master's order and remand.     

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS
and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.