Dockside Assoc. v. Detyens, Simmons & Carlisle

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Dockside Assoc. v. Detyens, Simmons & Carlisle

337 S.E.2d 887, 287 S.C. 287, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 538

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 16, 1985

Docket22426

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 337 S.E.2d 887 (Dockside Assoc. v. Detyens, Simmons & Carlisle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dockside Assoc. v. Detyens, Simmons & Carlisle, 337 S.E.2d 887, 287 S.C. 287, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 538 (S.C. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We grant certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reported at 285 S. C. 567, 330 S. E. (2d) 537 (Ct. App. 1985), on the issue of Dockside Association’s (Association) standing. We dispense with the filing of transcripts and briefs.

The Court of Appeals found that the condominium’s common elements were owned by the apartment owners rather than the Association. Based on this, the court held that Association was not the real party in interest and thus had no standing to sue. However, this Court has held that a property regime has standing to bring an action for construction defects in common elements that the regime has a duty to maintain. Queens Grant Villas Horizontal Property Regimes v. Daniel International Corp., 335 S. E. (2d) 365 (S. C. 1985); Roundtree Villas Association v. 4701 Kings Corp., 282 S. C. 415, 321 S. E. (2d) 46 (1984). We reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that Association had standing to maintain this action.

*289 Since we deny certiorari on the remaining issues, our decision on this issue does not affect the result in this case. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

We grant certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reported at 285 S. C. 567, 330 S. E. (2d) 537 (Ct. App. 1985), on the issue of Dockside Association’s (Association) standing. We dispense with the filing of transcripts and briefs.

The Court of Appeals found that the condominium’s common elements were owned by the apartment owners rather than the Association. Based on this, the court held that Association was not the real party in interest and thus had no standing to sue. However, this Court has held that a property regime has standing to bring an action for construction defects in common elements that the regime has a duty to maintain. Queens Grant Villas Horizontal Property Regimes v. Daniel International Corp., 335 S. E. (2d) 365 (S. C. 1985); Roundtree Villas Association v. 4701 Kings Corp., 282 S. C. 415, 321 S. E. (2d) 46 (1984). We reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that Association had standing to maintain this action.

*289 Since we deny certiorari on the remaining issues, our decision on this issue does not affect the result in this case. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 S.E.2d 887, 287 S.C. 287, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dockside-assoc-v-detyens-simmons-carlisle-sc-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack