St. Clements v. BE-MI

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 18, 2013
• Docket: 2013-UP-466
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-466 Heard November 5, 2013 – Filed December 18, 2013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.