- 17 -
was by definition occasionally submerged, could not be used for
residential or agricultural purposes. Petitioners’ expert also
conceded that the strip was only accessible to its owner by
water, and, further, that the only conceivable market for the
property would be the 28 adjacent lot owners. Petitioners make
clear in their arguments on brief that their theory of valuation
is that the strip of land between the water’s edge and high water
mark was valuable because it afforded its owner the opportunity
to restrict the water access of the 28 adjacent lot owners. Thus
it was a nuisance that the lot owners would pay to eliminate.
Respondent counters that, under South Carolina law, the lot
owners had an easement granting them access to the water, citing
McAllister v. Smiley, 389 S.E.2d 857 (S.C. 1990) (owner of lot
bounded by road had easement over road since it appeared in
original plat). Thus, respondent argues, the lot owners would
pay nothing for water access or would certainly sue any owner of
the strip who sought to restrict their water access. We believe
there is significant support for respondent’s position. In
addition to the case cited by respondent, we note Epps v.
Freeman, 200 S.E.2d 235 (S.C. 1973), which held that where
waterfront property is subdivided such that a strip of land
exists between the lots and the water, the lot owners have a
right to water access if it was the “intention of the
subdividers” to give the lot owners access to the water and “the
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011