E. Rogers v. River Hills Limited Partnership, No. 12-1966 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1966 E. CARROLL ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RIVER HILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; RIVER HILLS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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, action Incorporated for breach of ( the Corporation ), easement interference with contract. agreement in his and civil tortious Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a district court s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences favorable to the non-moving party. in the light most 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. facts that governing might law judgment. (1986). Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). affect will the outcome properly of preclude Only disputes over the the suit entry under of the summary Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 To withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence to reveal the existence of See Thompson a genuine v. Potomac issue of Elec. material Power Co., fact 312 for F.3d trial. 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 determination containing that the challenging the claim purported the failed easement The district court because agreement South Carolina s statute of frauds. (1991). district court s the did writing not satisfy S. C. Code Ann. ยง 32-3-10 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. (S.C. 2007). writing s owned 2009); v. Koon, 642 S.E.2d 602, 604-05 We reject as meritless Rogers argument that the description only Fici one parcel was sufficient of land at because the time the the Partnership writing was executed because this information is available only by reference to evidence unsupported that the extrinsic by the writing to the evidence contained location of the easement. writing. and a We unexplained sufficient reject Rogers description as both argument of the 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 without with merit contract). Rogers Finally, remaining we reject arguments as wholly 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 contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4