Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; December 18, 2008; South Carolina; State Appellate Court
In the case of James W. Coker v. Catherine G. Cummings et al., the South Carolina Court of Appeals upheld a master-in-equity's summary judgment favoring the respondents, determining that Coker had acquiesced to the established boundary lines. The dispute centers on Lot 24 in the Smithville subdivision, initially conveyed to Jessie and Evelyn Gregg in 1985, then returned to Mott Fogle in 1987. After Coker purchased Lot 24 from Fogle in 2002, he discovered a discrepancy between the property’s described boundaries and its actual dimensions, which he learned about during a survey prior to closing.
Coker initiated legal action in 2003 against Cummings and the Greens concerning the boundary dispute, later adding additional defendants. The Greens claimed to have established their boundaries through adverse possession, with Annie Green testifying to cultivating the land since the early 1950s without challenge. Cummings asserted long-standing possession of her lots, with no complaints about the boundary for over 20 years. Coker provided an affidavit from a title examiner that referenced historical plats showing consistency in lot dimensions, alongside testimony from his brother indicating prior awareness of boundary disputes.
The court affirmed the ruling based on evidence of acquiescence to the existing boundaries, dismissing Coker's claims for a declaratory judgment.
The defendants were granted summary judgment by the master on October 27, 2006, with a more detailed order issued on December 8, 2006. This order stated that Coker failed to counter the substantial evidence from the defendants, resulting in no genuine issue of material fact. The master found that all defendants had occupied their properties up to recognized boundary lines through acquiescence, acknowledged for over ten years by Coker's grantor and predecessors, referencing Knox v. Bogan for legal precedent. The excerpt emphasizes that adjoining landowners who mutually recognize and acquiesce to a boundary line for a statutory period cannot later dispute its validity.
The summary judgment standard requires no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with all evidence viewed favorably for the nonmoving party. The law indicates that further factual inquiry may be needed before summary judgment is appropriate.
Respondents argued for dismissal of Coker's appeal due to untimeliness, as the initial form order did not indicate a subsequent full order, and no Rule 59(e) motion was filed. However, the court disagreed, affirming that the appeal timeline starts upon receipt of written notice of the order's entry. The requirement to serve a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and failure to adhere to the deadline precludes the appellate court from considering the appeal. The excerpt cites case law to reinforce these points.
On February 10, 1997, the trial court issued an order that was deemed untimely by the supreme court, as it failed to comply with Rule 59(e), which requires a ten-day timeframe for altering or amending an order unless a reservation of jurisdiction is included. The January form order did not indicate that a more complete order would follow, resulting in its "maturation" into a final judgment without a timely Rule 59 motion or sua sponte order. Consequently, the February order was invalid as the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Coker’s situation was distinguished from the Leviner case, as he did not receive notice of the January form order until the full order was issued, thereby rendering his appeal timely. Although the form order did not explicitly state that a full order would follow, the master’s instruction to draft a longer order indicated a reservation of jurisdiction.
Regarding the doctrine of acquiescence, Coker contended that the master wrongly concluded there were no justiciable issues of fact, thus granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court affirmed this, stating that establishing a disputed boundary line is a factual question, where acquiescence by the parties can support a boundary claim. Acquiescence requires intent and a lack of objection in the presence of inconsistent property dealings. Long-term mutual recognition of a boundary line by adjoining landowners can preclude later claims against it. While the period for establishing acquiescence typically aligns with the statute of limitations, it can also occur over a much shorter timeframe. For a new boundary to be validated by acquiescence, both parties must acknowledge a specific line as the true property line. Additionally, discrepancies between designated monuments and reference plans must follow the normal rule that calls for monuments take precedence.
In boundary dispute cases, the quantity of land specified in a deed is generally of low importance. When a party moves for summary judgment, the opposing party must provide specific facts through affidavits or other means to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, rather than relying solely on allegations or denials. Failure to do so may result in the court granting summary judgment in favor of the moving party. In this instance, Coker presented plats and an affidavit to support his claim of incorrect boundaries; however, the evidence did not counter the Respondents' proof of having occupied the disputed boundaries for over twenty years. The plats indicated potential past boundaries but did not establish current inaccuracies, and the affidavit was deemed speculative without raising a material question of fact. Therefore, the master’s decision to grant summary judgment was upheld. Additionally, the Respondents' motion to dismiss Coker's appeal due to untimeliness was denied, allowing them to address the issue in their brief.
