William N. Kellahan, Jr. and Alice H. Kellahan - Page 17




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011