Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-118 - Anderson County v. Lakeside Lighthouse

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

Anderson County, South Carolina, Respondent,

v.

Lakeside Lighthouse, Inc., Donald A. Slater, Denise A. Slater, and R. Jack Lingefelt, Appellants.


Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-118
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 29, 2012


AFFIRMED


James S. Eakes and Charles W. Whiten, Jr., both of Anderson, for Appellants.

Charles F. Turner, Jr. and Sarah Day Hurley, both of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lakeside Lighthouse, Inc., Donald A. Slater, Denise A. Slater, and R. Jack Lingefelt (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court's grant of partial summary judgment to Anderson County on the issue of the validity of Anderson County Ordinance No. 2000-028.  Appellants argue (1) genuine issues of material fact exist and (2) the circuit court erred in determining the ordinance to be legally valid.  We affirm.[1]

1. The circuit court did not err in determining that no genuine issues of material fact exist.  Appellants have failed to demonstrate any facts that are in dispute.  The parties agree on the facts surrounding the adoption of the zoning ordinance.  Their disagreement pertains to the ordinance's legality, not to the events leading to its enactment.  Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in finding there to be no factual dispute.  See Rule 56(c), SCRCP ("[Summary] judgment . . . shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.").

2. Because Appellants failed to challenge the validity of the zoning ordinance within sixty days of its enactment and because Anderson County substantially complied with its own procedures for ordinance adoption, we affirm the circuit court's decision upholding the ordinance's legality.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 6-29-760(D) (2004) ("No challenge to the adequacy of notice or challenge to the validity of a regulation or map, or amendment to it, whether enacted before or after the effective date of this section, may be made sixty days after the decision of the governing body if there has been substantial compliance with the notice requirements of this section or with established procedures of the governing authority or the planning commission." (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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