AMH-Ashley Marina v. The Harborage at Ashley Marina

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
AMH-Ashley Marina, LLC, and AMH Management,
LLC, Appellants,
v.
The Harborage at Ashley Marina Horizontal Property
Regime, The Harborage at Ashley Marina Condominium
Association, Eddie McCoy, Stuart Reeves, Brian Swan,
Rich Cone, and Ed Miskotten, individually, Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002742
Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-357
Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed July 6, 2016
AFFIRMED
Edward K. Pritchard, III and Elizabeth Fraysure Fulton,
both of Pritchard Law Group LLC, of Charleston, for
Appellants.
Michael A. Timbes and Thomas James Rode, both of
Thurmond Kirchner Timbes & Yelverton, P.A., of
Charleston, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hamin, 368 S.C. 536, 540, 629 S.E.2d 683,
685 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Declaratory judgment actions are neither legal nor equitable,
and therefore, the standard of review depends on the nature of the underlying
issues."); Heritage Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Eagle Lake & Golf Condos., 318 S.C. 535,
539, 458 S.E.2d 561, 564 (Ct. App. 1995) ("The interpretation of a deed is an
equitable matter."); id. (stating that in matters of equity, this court "review[s] the
evidence to determine the facts in accordance with [its] view of the preponderance
of the evidence"); Kinard v. Richardson, 407 S.C. 247, 257, 754 S.E.2d 888, 893
(Ct. App. 2014) (noting that a restrictive covenant is an agreement to do or not to
do certain things with respect to real property); Seabrook Island Prop. Owners
Ass'n v. Marshland Trust, Inc., 358 S.C. 655, 661, 596 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Ct. App.
2004) (noting that restrictive covenants are voluntary contracts); Hardy v. Aiken,
369 S.C. 160, 166, 631 S.E.2d 539, 542 (2006) ("[A] restriction on the use of the
property . . . [is] to be strictly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of the
free use of property." (alteration in original) (quoting Hamilton v. CCM, Inc., 274
S.C. 152, 157, 263 S.E.2d 378, 380 (1980))); Sea Pines Plantation Co. v. Wells,
294 S.C. 266, 270, 363 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1987) ("Courts shall enforce such
covenants unless they are indefinite or contravene public policy."); N. Am. Rescue
Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 379, 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015)
(providing that "agreements to agree in the future have no legal effect" and are
void for indefiniteness).1
AFFIRMED.2
LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We find the two-issue rule is inapplicable to this appeal. See Atl. Coast Builders
& Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 328, 730 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2012)
("Under the two[-]issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground,
the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the
unappealed ground will become law of the case." (quoting Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C.
339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903 (2010))).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.