St. Clements v. BE-MI ( 2013 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The St. Clements Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Appellant,
v.
BE-MI, Inc., Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213333
Appeal From Horry County
Cynthia Graham Howe, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-466
Heard November 5, 2013 – Filed December 18, 2013
AFFIRMED
Michael James Barnett, of McCrackin, Barnett &
Richardson, LLP, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.
Fred B. Newby, Sr., and C. Scott Masel both of Newby,
Sartip, Masel & Casper, LLC, of Myrtle Beach, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: St. Clements Homeowners Association, Inc. (St. Clements)
appeals the Master-in-Equity's order, in which the Master denied St. Clements'
claim for an injunction and ordered that Respondent BE-MI, Inc. (BE-MI) had the
right to retain and maintain a certain side deck. We affirm.
"An action to enforce restrictive covenants by injunction is in equity." S.C. Dep't
of Natural Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 622, 550 S.E.2d 299, 302
(2001). "On appeal from an equitable action, an appellate court may find facts in
accordance with its own view of the evidence." Buffington v. T.O.E. Enters., 383
S.C. 388, 391, 680 S.E.2d 289, 290 (2009). "While this standard permits a broad
scope of review, an appellate court will not disregard the findings of the trial court,
which saw and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their
credibility." Id. "A court does not automatically issue a mandatory injunction
once it finds a restrictive covenant has been violated." Sea Pines Plantation Co. v.
Wells, 294 S.C. 266, 274, 363 S.E.2d 891, 896 (1987) (citing Hunnicutt v.
Rickenbaker, 268 S.C. 511, 515-16, 234 S.E.2d 887, 889 (1977)). "The court must
balance the equities between the parties; and if the harm to the defendant
outweighs the plaintiff's benefit, no relief will be granted." Sea Pines, 294 S.C. at
274, 363 S.E.2d at 896. "Although the issuance of a mandatory injunction depends
upon the equities between the parties, the decision of whether to issue such relief
rests in the court's discretion." Id. The evidence presented at trial shows an
injunction seeking removal of the side deck would cause considerable harm. BE-
MI has constructed, maintained, and improved the side deck at BE-MI's own
expense. The side deck constitutes a substantial part of BE-MI's business and
relieves congestion by the pool and pool bar, allows patrons a place to sit and eat,
and provides shade. In contrast, St. Clements asserts an injunction would remedy
the loss of two parking spots; however, the record is unclear on the necessity of
those two spots. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Master is
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.