Can an alley be the basis of an appurtenant easement in SC?

Standard

The Court of Appeals says it can

Charleston houses

Two valuable downtown Charleston residential lots were the subject of an easement case decided by the South Carolina Court of Appeals on September 19.* Much to the dismay of the owners of 45 Lagare Street, the Court held that an appurtenant easement exists in the form of an alley that runs along a boundary of 45 Lagare Street for the benefit of 47 Lagare Street.

Master-in-Equity Mikell Scarborough had granted summary judgment in favor of the owner of 47 Lagare Street, finding an easement appurtenant burdened 45 Lagare Street, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

In 1911, the properties were considered a single lot known as 47 Lagare Street owned by W.G. Hinson. That year, Hinson divided the property, creating 45 Lagare Street, and conveying that lot to his niece. The 1911 deed established an easement for the benefit of the 47 Lagare Street, which Hinson retained. This language established the easement:

Also, the full and free use and enjoyment as an easement to run with the land of the right of ingress, egress, and regress, in, over, through, and upon the alley-way eight (8) feet wide as a drive way or carriage way, situation, lying, and being immediately to the south of (47 Lagare), and being the southern boundary of said (47 Legare).

Title to both lots passed to third parties, and in 1971, a new survey was drawn,** and the owners of both properties provided verbatim descriptions of the original easement and covenanted that the no buildings or obstructions would be erected on the easement area. The documents stated that the covenants would run with the land.

The most recent deed of the benefited property recited the existence of the easement, but the most recent deed of the burdened property did not. In 2004, the owner of the benefited property added a chain-link fence and masonry wall along the border with the burdened property.

During the trial, the Appellants argued that the easement had been abandoned and stated that the only time it was used was to allow for the Respondent’s landscapers to walk down the driveway to use the gate. Respondent testified that the easement area is also used by her family members, guests, tradesmen and other permittees to access the rear of 47 Legare for large-scale appliances, equipment, and machinery and to provide access to the only suitable area for off-street parking. She also claimed that she uses the easement to access the back of her property in a golf cart.

The first issue on appeal became whether a terminus existed on 47 Legare, a requirement for an appurtenant easement. Two Supreme Court cases were discussed, Whaley v. Stevens, 21 S.C.221 (1884), which held that the terminus requirement in South Carolina only requires the dominant estate to be contiguous or adjacent to the easement. A later case, Steele v. Williams, 204 S.C. 124 (1944) held that an alleyway was an easement in gross rather than an appurtenant easement because it lacked a terminus.

The Court of Appeals found Whaley controls although no South Carolina case has explicitly defined the terminus requirement. The Court held that the terminus issue is a fact-specific inquiry and that, intuitively, the dominant estate must have access to the purported easement.

In addition, the Court stated, an appurtenant easement might be found if the purported easement (1) at least touches the dominant estate and (2) in cases where the easement is an adjacent boundary between—or runs parallel—to the dominant and servient estates, such as the case at hand, the easement does not extend beyond the dominant estate’s boundary. (At most, the easement ends at the lot line of the dominant estate.) In Steele, the alley extended beyond the appellant’s property.

The intent of the parties was held to be determinative, and the Court held that the 1911 common owner, Hinson, clearly intended that the driveway would be an easement appurtenant.

The Court next discussed the appurtenant easement requirement of necessity. 47 Legare Street obviously has direct public access on Lagare Street, but the Court held that the easement was necessary to reach the rear of the property by large-scale equipment and tools and to provide for off-street parking.

We will wait to see whether our Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in on this issue.

 

* Williams v. Tamsberg, S.C. Court of Appeals Opinion No. 5596 (September 19, 2018)

** Plat of Number 47 Legare Street and Easement surveyed by Cummings & McCrady, Inc., dated February 1971, is attached.

Advertisements

Take a look: deep within the Internet is a secretive place…

Standard

.. where criminals buy and sell your private information

Nobody in my household is old enough to receive publications from AARP. (And if you believe that, I should either say “thank you” or try to sell you that beautiful 8-lane bridge crossing the Cooper River in Charleston.) But, for some reason, AARP’s September Bulletin arrived in my mailbox today, and it contained an excellent article entitled “Inside the Dark Web” that provides the best information on that topic than I’ve read to date. You can read the article here.

The article, written by Doug Shadel with Neil Wertheimer, said much of the available information on the dark web comes from Brett Johnson, an “imposing and charismatic” former criminal once dubbed the “Original Internet Godfather.” Johnson created “Shadowcrew”, one of the first online forums where criminals could buy guns, credit cards, Social Security numbers, and drugs. He landed on the Secret Service’s most-wanted list and was in and out of prison for a decade. The other source of information is a character who is now in prison and who asked to be called “Blue London” in this article. Today, according to this article, Brett and Blue are willing to share detail about the dark web, Brett, as a law enforcement consultant, and Blue, as an inmate who wants to reduce his prison sentence.

dark web

The article describes the entire content of the web. The “surface web”, which makes up 5-10% of the Internet, consists of sites that show up when you use normal search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing. These sites encompass news, entertainment, products, services and consumer information. The creators of these sites, like Wikipedia, Amazon and WebMD, want lots of people to see them.

The “deep web”, which makes up 90-95% of the Internet, consists of pages requiring a password and can’t be accessed by normal search engines. These sites include online banking, subscription websites, government records, emails and most social media content. Examples include PayPal, Netflix, LinkedIn, Instagram and Dropbox.

The “dark web”, which makes up just 01% of the Internet, consists of sites that provide anonymity to users and go largely unregulated. Many are legal. For example, sites service as outlets for human rights activists can be found on the dark web. But the dark web is also used by criminals to make illicit purchases and sales with total anonymity. Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is used to make the transactions untraceable.

The article described AlphaBay, a site that, before it was taken down in 2017 by the FBI, had over 200,000 users and took in between $600,000 and $800,000 daily, mostly drug related. But that site also dealt in stolen personal IDs, stolen credit card numbers and hacking tools.

Brett and Blue showed the authors of the article many other inhabitants of the dark web that moved in to take the place of AlphaBay. These sites sell the items marketed on AlphaBay plus logins and passwords, credit reports, and “fullz” which translates to a “complete package of everything needed to commit identity theft: Social Security number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name, address, phone numbers, driver’s license number and more.”  Blue said a fullz can sell for $20-$130, depending on the victim’s age and credit score.

Data can also be sold piecemeal. Brett asked the author his wife’s name and quickly found her Social Security number available for purchase at $2.99. The author also paid a small fee and received a 92-page report containing all his current and previous addresses, phone numbers, social media sites and email addresses. The report also contained descriptions of his family members and neighbors and details about properties he has owned.

Much of the data, according to this article, goes up for sale shortly after it is stolen. The huge data breaches we hear about routinely apparently flood the market and deflate prices. Brett and Blue told the author that they could study social media sites to harvest data for criminal purposes. Many sites use “knowledge-based authentication” (KBA) questions, which should be information that only the user knows. But if the user adds this type of information to social media sites, the scammers can successfully mine the information.

The article provides some advice to stop the cybercriminals. First, we should all simply assume that our information is already “out there” on the Internet, and take action to protect ourselves. Cybersecurity experts and former criminals agree on three steps to help us all stay safe:  freeze credit, closely monitor all accounts and use a password manager. The author said he fully subscribes to this advice and has taken all three steps. I’m at two out of three. What about you?

(You can thank me later for directing you to this outstanding article that you are much too young to read.)