- 18 -
plat amounted to a representation” that the lot owners would have
access to the water. Id. at 242. The record in this case
demonstrates that the subdivider’s intent was to give water
access, and the plat, or at least Mr. Hardy’s representation to
buyers, appears to indicate water access. Further, the record in
this case amply documents that the 28 lot owners were “very
disgruntled” upon learning that the Canal had been sold at
auction for back taxes.
We need not, and do not, decide whether under South Carolina
law the adjacent lot owners had easements with respect to the
Canal parcel. It is sufficient for our purposes to conclude that
there was a significant risk that such was the case. We believe
it obvious that whatever property rights were conveyed with
ownership of the Canal parcel were subject to significant
litigation hazards. We conclude that it was a virtual certainty
that any attempt by the Canal’s owner to restrict the adjacent
lot owners’ water access would be met with a lawsuit.9
Petitioners’ expert conceded at trial that he took no account of
the possibility of litigation in arriving at his value estimate.
This fact alone might provide grounds for substantially
discounting his conclusions. When we consider the failure to
9 Indeed, given the lot owners’ disquietude evidenced in the
record, we believe merely holding title to the Canal might result
in entanglement in a suit to quiet title brought by the lot
owners.
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