Batson v. Northside Traders

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

Louis P.
Batson, Jr., Respondent,

v.

Northside
Traders, LLC, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-346 

Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed June 29,
2011

AFFIRMED

Douglas A. Churdar, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Calvin Theodore Vick, Jr., of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Northside
Traders, LLC appeals the order of the trial court declaring an easement in
favor of Louis P. Batson, Jr. was valid and enforceable.  We affirm.[1]

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Batson was an adjoining
landowner with Charles and Anne Bell.  He owned the property known as Lot 4
while the Bells owned Lots 1, 2, and 3, as well as a strip of land located
between Lot 3 and Dogwood Trail, a private drive.  On July 21, 1965, the Bells
granted Batson an express easement across their property to his adjoining
property (the Instrument).  The Instrument granted Batson:

A
right-of-way twenty (20) feet in width, for the purpose of ingress and egress,
leading from the rear portion of Lot 4 . . . across the rear portions of Lots 3
and 2, and then in a Southeasterly direction through Lot 1, and through a strip
of land described in a deed from Aleene L. Parham to Charles W. Bell and Anne
W. Bell . . . into Dogwood Drive [also known as Dogwood Trail].

The
aforementioned right-of-way shall be in such specific location (not
inconsistent with the above general location) as shall least interfere with the
use and development of said lots by the grantors, and at the election of the
grantors, the use of said right-of-way by the grantee shall be in common with
the grantors. 

At the time of the execution
of the Instrument, Dogwood Trail was a private road and remains that way
today.  The former owners of Dogwood Trail and the property east of the Bells'
property had transferred the road to Greenville County in 1952.  The County,
however, transferred the road back to then-owners C.E. Singleton and Julia
Belle Singleton in 1954.  Doril L. Howell is the current owner of the property
and has not granted Batson the right to use the road.  Batson has yet to
construct a roadway pursuant to the Instrument. 

Tad Mallory purchased the
Bells' property on September 8, 2005.  He subsequently transferred the property
to Northside Traders, LLC, of which he is the managing member.  Soon after
Mallory acquired the property, Batson contacted him about reaching an agreement
as to the specific location of the easement.  Mallory did not deny being aware
of the easement.   Instead, he stated he believed it was not enforceable and
was void. 

Batson brought this action
seeking a declaration he has a valid and enforceable easement terminating at
View Point Drive.  He also requested an injunction prohibiting Northside from
interfering with his right to construct a road terminating at View Point Drive. 

The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment.  The trial court held, "[i]t is clear
that the grantors' intent was to give Batson, his heirs and assigns a
right-of-way through the grantor's property that ultimately terminated at View
Point Drive.  The Instrument evidences this intent, and the grantors
incorporated sufficient flexibility into the Instrument to allow the
right-of-way to continue south through Lot 1 into View Point Drive." 
Thus, the trial court declared the easement valid and enforceable and ruled
Batson, his heirs and assigns could install and enjoy the right of way in the
general location described in the Instrument, with such right-of-way
terminating at View Point Drive.  This appeal followed. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

Northside argues that the
easement was void ab initio or is extinguished.  It asserts the purpose
of the easement was to provide ingress and egress into Dogwood Trail and
because Batson did not have the right to use Dogwood Trail, the easement could
never be used.  We disagree with this interpretation of the Instrument creating
the easement. 

"A grant of an easement
is to be construed in accordance with the rules applied to deeds and other
written instruments."  K & A Acquisition Group, LLC v. Island
Pointe, LLC, 383 S.C. 563, 581, 682 S.E.2d 252, 262 (2009) (internal
quotation omitted).  In construing a deed, "the intention of the grantor
must be ascertained and effectuated, unless that intention contravenes some
well settled rule of law or public policy."  Id.(internal quotation
omitted.)  "In determining the grantor's intent, the deed must be
construed as a whole and effect given to every part if it can be done
consistently with the law."  Id.(internal quotation omitted)

Reading the Instrument as a
whole, we agree with the trial court the purpose of the Instrument was to give
Batson an easement through the Bells' property "for the purpose of ingress
and egress" to his property and not specifically to grant him access "into
Dogwood Trail."  According to a survey prepared for Mallory, Dogwood Trail
intersects with View Point Drive slightly to the south of the "strip of
land."  It leads to no other public road.  As the trial court noted, if
the purpose of the Instrument was to give Batson ingress and egress into Dogwood
Drive, there would have been no reason to direct the easement through the "strip
of land" when the more direct route would have been north of the strip of
land. 

The Instrument clearly
provided the specifications given were for a "general location" of
the easement and provided for flexibility in locating the easement.  The fact
that Batson had other access to View Point Drive is immaterial as the easement
is not one by necessity.  We hold the parties intended for Batson to have
additional access to his property through the Bells' property.  We find the Instrument
is valid and enforceable. 

Northside also argues the
trial court erred in relocating the easement to terminate at the public road,
View Point Drive.  See Sheppard v. Justin Enters., 373 S.C. 518, 521,
646 S.E.2d 177, 178 (Ct. App. 2007) (stating the location of an easement, once
selected or fixed, cannot be changed by the owner of the servient estate
without the express or implied consent of the owner of the dominant estate).  This
case, however, does not involve the relocation of an existing express
easement.  Instead, it involves the initial placement of the right-of-way
pursuant to a grant that provided a "general location" for the
right-of-way and called for flexibility in the placement.  The trial court's
order providing for the right-of-way to terminate at View Point Drive
effectuates the intent of the parties to the Instrument.  We find no error in
the trial court's ruling. 

Accordingly, the
order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. 

HUFF, SHORT,
and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 

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