E. Rogers v. River Hills Limited Partnership ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1966
E. CARROLL ROGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RIVER HILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; RIVER HILLS GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB OF NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (4:09-cv-01540-JMC)
Submitted: February 20, 2013 Decided: March 13, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carmelo B. Sammataro, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY PA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William C. Wood, Jr.,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Columbia, South
Carolina; Susan P. MacDonald, Lindsey E. Hendrick, NELSON
MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
E. Carroll Rogers appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to River Hills Limited Partnership
(“the Partnership”) and River Hills Golf & Country Club of North
Myrtle Beach, Incorporated (“the Corporation”), in his civil
action for breach of easement agreement and tortious
interference with contract. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Dulaney v. Packaging Corp.
of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is
proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Only disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the
non-moving party must produce competent evidence to reveal the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649
(4th Cir. 2002) (“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not
suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of
2
[the non-moving party’s] case.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary
judgment to the Partnership and the Corporation. With respect
to Rogers’ claim for breach of easement agreement, we reject his
appellate arguments challenging the district court’s
determination that the claim failed because the writing
containing the purported easement agreement did not satisfy
South Carolina’s statute of frauds. S. C. Code Ann. § 32-3-10
(1991). The district court correctly determined that the
writing did not sufficiently describe the portion or parcel of
the servient estate to be affected by the easement.
K & A Acquisition Grp., LLC v. Island Pointe, LLC, 682 S.E.2d
252, 262 (S.C. 2009); Fici v. Koon, 642 S.E.2d 602, 604-05
(S.C. 2007). We reject as meritless Rogers’ argument that the
writing’s description was sufficient because the Partnership
owned only one parcel of land at the time the writing was
executed because this information is available only by reference
to evidence extrinsic to the writing. We reject as both
unsupported by the evidence and unexplained Rogers’ argument
that the writing contained a sufficient description of the
location of the easement. We also reject as lacking in any
principled explanation Rogers’ challenge to the district court’s
3
determination that the writing evinced an executory promise, not
a present intent to convey an easement.
We further reject as meritless Rogers’ appellate
challenge to the district court’s disposition of his claim for
tortious interference. His challenge is largely unresponsive to
the district court’s determination that the claim failed because
the Partnership and the Corporation acted in good faith by
failing to acknowledge the existence of the easement, and he
fails to point to evidence establishing that the Partnership and
the Corporation lacked a justification for doing so.
See Eldeco, Inc. v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., 642 S.E.2d 726,
731 (S.C. 2007) (listing the elements of a claim for tortious
interference with contract). Finally, we reject as wholly
without merit Rogers’ remaining arguments — addressing
alternative defenses not ruled upon by the district court — for
overturning the court’s judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4