Goldman v. RBC, Inc.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT
SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

David W. Goldman and Emilie E. Goldman,       
Respondents,

v.

RBC, Inc.,       
Appellants.

Appeal From Sumter County

Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-362

Submitted May 13, 2004 – Filed June
4, 2004

AFFIRMED

James Edward Bell, III, of Sumter, for Appellant.

Kristi F. Curtis, of Sumter, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  RBC, Inc. appeals the trial court’s
grant of summary judgment to David and Emily Goldman in this action to quiet
title to a railroad track adjacent to the Goldmans’ property. RBC contends that
its predecessor in interest acquired a fee simple in the property because the
owners did not apply for an assessment or compensation within ten years of the
railroad’s completion.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following
authorities:  Faulkenberry v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 349 S.C. 318, 325,
563 S.E.2d 644, 648 (2002) (“We adhere to the wealth of authority in this state
and hold that [the statutory grants] created only an easement in the [r]ailroads.”);
Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 331 S.C. 398, 503 S.E.2d 191 (Ct. App.
1998) (holding that a railroad’s interest acquired through a statutory presumption
of grant is a mere easement  under South Carolina law).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., ANDERSON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.