Queen's Grant Villas Horizontal Property Regimes I-V v. Daniel International Corp.

335 S.E.2d 365, 286 S.C. 555, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 497
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 1, 1985
Docket22377
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 335 S.E.2d 365 (Queen's Grant Villas Horizontal Property Regimes I-V v. Daniel International Corp.) 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
Queen's Grant Villas Horizontal Property Regimes I-V v. Daniel International Corp., 335 S.E.2d 365, 286 S.C. 555, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 497 (S.C. 1985).

Opinion

Harwell, Justice:

*556 Appellants, Queen’s Grant Villas Horizontal Property Regimes I-V (the Regimes), brought these actions against respondents for alleged defects in the construction of the common elements of a condominum project. The lower court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment, finding the Regimes lacked standing to maintain the actions. We reverse.

A property regime has standing to bring an action for construction defects in common elements that the regime has the duty to maintain. Roundtree Villas Ass’n v. 4701 Kings Corp., 282 S. C. 415, 321 S. E. (2d) 46 (1984). In this case, the master deeds and the by-laws incorporated therein show that the Regime has the obligation to maintain the common elements. Should the Regime not uphold its duty to pursue a recovery for any alleged construction defects, in the common elements which it maintains, it may be liable to the homeowners for its omissions.

The effect of our opinion is to overrule the Court of Appeals’ decision in Dockside Ass’n v. Detyens, __ S. C. __, 330 S. E. (2d) 537 (S. C. App. 1985), which erroneously stated that a regime has no standing to maintain an action unless it owns the common elements.

Reversed and remanded.

Littlejohn, C. J., and Ness, Gregory and Chandler, J J., concur.

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

Related

Pinckney v. Epcon Communities
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2015
Fisher v. Shipyard Village Council of Co-Owners, Inc.
760 S.E.2d 121 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2014)
Greenstein v. Council of Unit Owners of Avalon Court Six Condominium, Inc.
29 A.3d 604 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2011)
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Madison at Park West Property Owners Ass'n
834 F. Supp. 2d 437 (D. South Carolina, 2011)
Queen's Grant II Horizontal Property Regime v. Greenwood Development Corp.
628 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006)
Bardoon Properties, NV v. Eidolon Corp.
485 S.E.2d 371 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1997)
Charleston Joint Venture v. McPherson
417 S.E.2d 544 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1992)
Murphy v. Yacht Cove Homeowners Assoc.
345 S.E.2d 709 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
Dockside Assoc. v. Detyens, Simmons & Carlisle
337 S.E.2d 887 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1985)
Jablonsky v. Klemm
377 N.W.2d 560 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
335 S.E.2d 365, 286 S.C. 555, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/queens-grant-villas-horizontal-property-regimes-i-v-v-daniel-sc-1985.