Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-473 - Sessions v. Platt

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-473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.