Month: July 2023

Florida facing insurance concerns much like California

Standard

In May, this blog discussed the news that State Farm has pulled out of the state of California for new homeowners’ policy applications. I’m updating that blog to add similar concerns in Florida.

My family has a modest second home in North Litchfield Beach. It isn’t close to the ocean. My Fitbit clocks 700 steps to the beach, and most family members prefer to drive a golf cart for that reason. To call it a “raised beach house” is an understatement. Because of flood insurance concerns, the garage level of the house was required to be very tall when we built in 2011.

We can’t paint or power wash with the tallest ladders available to homeowners. If we had a big boat, we could park it in the garage.  My point is that the living area of our house is so far above ground, that if it floods, it is likely that inland Pawleys Island and Georgetown County will also flood.

Thinking all the way back to Hurricane Hugo in 1989, my extended Georgetown County family members evacuated to Columbia to stay with us. Much to everyone’s surprise, our property in Columbia suffered more damage than their properties in Georgetown.

Earlier this year, we received a letter from our insurance agency indicating that it would attempt to obtain insurance for us for the upcoming insurance year, but we should be prepared for difficulty because of the frequency of hurricanes in our area.  There is no reason our house should be difficult to insure other than its location on the beach side of Highway 17.  

I share this information with South Carolina dirt lawyers, particularly those who practice in our coastal counties, for discussion purposes only. I’m not pushing a panic button by any means. But the headlines I read in May about State Farm’s decision to pull out of California as to new homeowners’ applications certainly caught my attention.

State Farm pointed to wildfire risks and construction cost inflation to justify its decision. Everyone is suffering from the latter, and, as to the former, the company didn’t attempt to limit the impact of its decision to those areas most affected by wildfires. Other stated concerns were climate change, reinsurance costs affecting the entire insurance industry, and global inflation. All of those concerns also affect all locations.

The company pulled out of the entire state as to new applications. And some news articles reported that State Farm is the largest insurer based on premium.  The fact that the largest insurer pulled out of the third largest state seems impactful.

The announcement did state that existing customers will not be affected and that automobile insurance applications will continue to be accepted.

Now, we’re seeing similar headlines from Florida. Farmers has announced that it is discontinuing new coverage of auto, home and umbrella policies in an effort to manage risk exposure. News articles explain that Farmers is the fourth major insurer to leave the Florida market in the past year. Most companies cite the substantial risk of hurricanes.

There doesn’t appear to be anything we should do at this point, other than to keep our eyes and ears open as to developments in the area of insurance for ourselves and our clients.

Property owners win railroad abandonment appeal

Standard

On July 12, South Carolina’s Court of Appeals issued an opinion* in favor of multiple property owners in a railroad abandonment case.

The properties at issue abutted a 24-mile railroad line extending from McCormick County to Abbeville County. In 1878, the State chartered the Savannah Valley Railroad Company (SVR) to construct the railroad.  Prior title holders granted SVR easements to allow the construction and operation of the railroad. The documents stated the easements would be void in the event the railroad was not erected and established. Each successive title holders’ deed was subject to the easements. SVR conveyed its interest to Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company.

In the late 1970’s Seaboard decided to close the track and seek permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to abandon the line. The ICC granted the request in 1970. The company wrote a letter to the ICC dated February 25, 1980, indicating the track was abandoned as of February 15, 1980.

Calhoun Falls and Savannah Valley Trails (SVT) were the ultimate owners of the railroad’s interests. When SVT began to construct a walking trail on the former line, property owners adjoining the line in McCormick County filed suit in 2016 seeking a declaratory judgment that the properties reverted to them when the track was abandoned. Abbeville County property owners filed a similar suit in 2018.

The trial court issued two orders finding (1) the railroad abandoned the line; (2) when the railroad abandoned the line, the easements were terminated, and the property rights reverted to the adjoining title holders; and (3) the doctrine of laches did not bar the property owners’ claims.

SVT argued on appeal that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the abandonment failed to follow the details of the ICC order. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that SVT had the burden of proving the railroad’s abandonment was incomplete and failed to meet that burden.

SVT also argued on appeal that laches barred the property owners’ claims. The Court of Appeals noted that SVT failed to plead laches as an affirmative defense, and that the trial court could have declined to address the issue. But, ultimately, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that SVT failed to present evidence that would equip the trial court to make a finding of prejudice to support the laches claim.

Finally, SVT argued that the trial court erred in finding the railroad had abandoned the line. The Court of Appeals noted that the railroad ceased operations, sought permission for abandonment from the ICC, removed the tracks, and transferred its property interests. Further, nothing in the record showed that the railroad failed to comply with the requirements of the ICC. Citing prior cases, the Court stated that to rule otherwise would gut the longstanding rule that an easement is extinguished when the railroad abandons the right of way for railroad purposes.

As a dirt lawyer, I like this opinion! If you run into railroad abandonment issues in your chains of title, consult your friendly, intelligent title company underwriters.

*Myers v. Town of Calhoun Falls, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5998 (July 12, 2023)

SC Supreme Court (again) upholds Myrtle Beach’s “family friendly” zoning overlay district

Standard

In May, this blog discussed Ani Creation, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach,* a case where the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld an ordinance that imposed a zoning overlay district intended to bolster the “family friendly” nature of Myrtle Beach’s historic downtown area. The ordinance targeted smoke shops and tobacco stores and the merchandizing of tobacco paraphernalia, products containing CBD, and sexually oriented material.

The opinion begins, “The City of Myrtle Beach (the city) is a town economically driven and funded by tourism.” The facts indicate that the city received frequent criticism from tourists and residents that the proliferation of smoke shops and tobacco stores repelled families from the area. The city passed a comprehensive plan that aimed at increasing tourism and concluded that all businesses needed to encourage and support a “family beach image”.  The city passed an ordinance which created a zoning overlay district known as the Ocean Boulevard Entertainment Overlay District that encompassed the historic downtown area.

The prohibited uses in the district were declared immediately nonconforming when the ordinance was passed on August 14, 2018, but an amortization period was allowed which gave affected businesses until December 31, 2019, to cease the nonconforming portions of their businesses.

The zoning administrator issued citations to the nonconforming businesses. Nine of the 25 affected stories appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals which found (1) it did not have jurisdiction to declare the ordinance unconstitutional; (2) it could not grant a use variance because it would allow the continuation of a use not otherwise allowed in the district; and (3) the businesses were engaged in one or more of the prohibited uses. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the Board’s opinion, finding the appellants’ 25 grounds for challenging the ordinance meritless. The businesses appealed directly to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

The appellants raised a “host” of constitutional and procedural challenges, all of which fell on deaf ears at the Supreme Court. The Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city’s police powers. According to the Court, municipal governing bodies clothed with authority to determine residential and industrial districts are better qualified by their knowledge of the situation to act upon such matters than are the courts, and they will not be interfered with in the exercise of their police power to accomplish their desired end unless there is a pain violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens.

The Appellants petitioned for a rehearing and in an opinion re-filed on June 28, the court again affirmed the Court of Appeals.

A comment on the Dirt Listserv said, “S. Carolina is OK with cancel culture after all.”  A store selling sexually oriented materials was removed from Garners Ferry Road in Columbia (about three miles from my house) using similar legal arguments. I was delighted to see that store torn down before I had to explain it to my grandchildren! But I do understand the “cancel culture” argument. What do you think?

*South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 28151 (April 19, 2023, Re-filed June 28, 2023)

Magistrate has no jurisdiction when title is in question

Standard

Court of Appeals reverses Circuit Court on this issue

In Rivers v. Smith*, South Carolina’s Court of Appeals reversed Orangeburg County’s Circuit Court order affirming a magistrate’s order of eviction.

Rufus Rivers and Merle Rivers have lived on property once owned by Jessie Mae Smith since 2009, although there was no record of a written lease. In 2013, Jessie Mae Smith signed a power of attorney in favor of her son, James Smith. In 2014, James Smith conveyed his mother’s property to himself by quitclaim deed using the power of attorney.

(The opinion contains no discussion of whether the conveyance of the property by the attorney in fact to himself was a valid transfer, but that would have been my first question.)

Jessie Mae Smith died in 2016. In 2018, James Smith sent the Rivers a letter demanding they vacate the property within 30 days. The Rivers refused. They asked James to cease and desist his efforts to displace them. They argued that James had an invalid power of attorney and alleged he had breached fiduciary duties. Competing lawsuits followed.

The Rivers’ lawsuit in the Circuit Court challenged James’ ownership of the property and alleged constructive fraud, unjust enrichment and other causes of action. The Rivers amended their complaint, alleging that James used an invalid power of attorney and that Jessie Mae Smith had orally given or promised the property to the Rivers.

James filed the subject case in the magistrate court, seeking eviction. The Rivers made various arguments to the magistrate opposing the eviction, including alleging that Jessie Mae Smith had promised the property to them. The Rivers also alerted the magistrate of their claims against James Smith in the circuit court.

James Smith’s main argument to the magistrate centered around the statute of limitations because the alleged gift would have occurred more than three years before the lawsuits were brought. The magistrate ruled that James Smith was the lawful owner of the property and ordered eviction.

On a motion by the Rivers to reconsider, the magistrate found that the case did not involve a question of title and that she had jurisdiction to hear the case. The circuit court affirmed, and this appeal followed.

The issue on appeal was whether South Carolina Code §22-3-20(2), which bars a magistrate from hearing a case when title to the property is in question, prohibited the magistrate from hearing this case.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Smith has defenses to Rivers’ claims, and that those defenses may be valid ones, but held that the magistrate’s jurisdiction ended as soon as it became clear that there was a challenge to title. The opinion further stated that the case may end in a second and successful eviction, but they refused to say that outcome is certain.

I will be curious to learn what the future holds in the litigation between these parties. I hope the property is worth the litigation, and I note with interest that the Rivers represented themselves pro se in the subject case.

*South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 5992 (June 21, 2023)