Horry County v. Helicopter Solutions, Inc.

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

Horry County, South Carolina, Appellant,

v.

Helicopter Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Helicopter Adventures,
Freddie Rick, and Burroughs & Chapin Company, Inc.,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000596

Appeal From Horry County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-317
Submitted September 19, 2024 – Filed September 25, 2024

AFFIRMED

Michael Warner Battle, of Battle Law Firm, LLC, of
Conway; Scott D. Bergthold, of Chattanooga, Tennessee,
both for Appellant.

Joseph M. McCulloch, Jr. and Kathy R. Schillaci, both of
McCulloch and Schillaci, of Columbia; Kelsey Jan
Brudvig and Christian Stegmaier, both of Collins &
Lacy, PC, of Columbia, all for Respondents Helicopter
Solutions, Inc. and Freddie Rick.
James Harrison Berry, of Myrtle Beach; James
Christopher Clark, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie,
LLC, of Myrtle Beach; both for Respondent Burroughs &
Chapin Company, Inc.

PER CURIAM: Horry County appeals the circuit court's order dismissing its
complaint seeking declaratory relief and an injunction on the basis Horry County
lacked standing to bring the claims pled in its complaint. On appeal, Horry County
argues the circuit court erred by granting Helicopter Solutions, Inc. d/b/a
Helicopter Adventures (Helicopter Solutions) and Freddie Rick's 1 motion to
dismiss because it was error to dismiss the declaratory judgment action as
non-justiciable when the court ignored Horry County's assertions of fact and
credited Helicopter Solutions, Rick, and Burroughs & Chapin Company, Inc.'s 2
contrary assertions. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the circuit court did not err by dismissing Horry County's declaratory
judgment action. Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to Horry
County, there is no justiciable controversy because Horry County lacks standing.
In 2016, Horry County passed an ordinance restricting heliports/helipads to public
use airports and required nonconforming heliports/helipads to relocate to a
conforming location by January 1, 2024. At the time Horry County filed its
complaint in July 2021 seeking, in part, a declaratory judgment that operation of a
helicopter sight-seeing business at the location in which Helicopter Solutions was
operating must cease on or before January 1, 2024, Horry County failed to show an
invasion of a legally protected interest that was actual or imminent. See Rydde v.
Morris, 381 S.C. 643, 646, 675 S.E.2d 431, 433 (2009) ("On appeal from the
dismissal of a case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)[ of the South Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure] an appellate court applies the same standard of review as the trial
court."); id. ("That standard requires the [c]ourt to construe the complaint in a light
most favorable to the nonmovant and determine if the 'facts alleged and the
inferences reasonably deducible from the pleadings would entitle the plaintiff to
relief on any theory of the case.'" (quoting Williams v. Condon, 347 S.C. 227, 233,
553 S.E.2d 496, 499 (Ct. App. 2001))); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-30 (2005)
(providing that under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a party "whose rights, status
or other legal relations are affected by a . . . municipal ordinance . . . may have

1
Rick is the owner and president of Helicopter Solutions.
2
Burroughs & Chapin Company, Inc. owns the land upon which Helicopter
Solutions operates.
determined any question of construction or validity arising under the . . . ordinance
. . . and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.");
Graham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 319 S.C. 69, 71, 459 S.E.2d 844, 845
(1995) ("To state a cause of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a party
must demonstrate a justiciable controversy."); Sunset Cay, LLC v. City of Folly
Beach, 357 S.C. 414, 423, 593 S.E.2d 462, 466 (2004) ("A justiciable controversy
is a real and substantial controversy which is appropriate for judicial
determination, as distinguished from a dispute or difference of a contingent,
hypothetical or abstract character." (quoting Power v. McNair, 255 S.C. 150, 154,
177 S.E.2d 551, 553 (1970))); Jowers v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 423
S.C. 343, 353, 815 S.E.2d 446, 451 (2018) ("A plaintiff has standing to challenge
legislation when he sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, actual
prejudice or injury from the legislative action."); id. ("To meet the 'stringent' test
for standing, 'the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a
legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or
imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."'" (quoting Sea Pines Ass'n for Prot.
of Wildlife, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res., 345 S.C. 594, 601, 550 S.E.2d 287, 291
(2001))); Waters v. S.C. Land Res. Conservation Comm'n, 321 S.C. 219, 228, 467
S.E.2d 913, 918 (1996) (citing to Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v. Thrifty Auto Sales
of Charleston, Inc. for the proposition that a "court should not decide a controversy
grounded in uncertain and contingent events that may not occur as anticipated or
may not occur at all" (quoting Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 849 F.Supp. 1083,
1085-86 (D.S.C.1991))).

AFFIRMED. 3

WILLIAMS, C.J., and MCDONALD and TURNER, JJ., concur.

3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.