WRB Ltd. Partnership v. County of Lexington

630 S.E.2d 479, 369 S.C. 30, 2006 S.C. LEXIS 171
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 15, 2006
Docket26149
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 630 S.E.2d 479 (WRB Ltd. Partnership v. County of Lexington) 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
WRB Ltd. Partnership v. County of Lexington, 630 S.E.2d 479, 369 S.C. 30, 2006 S.C. LEXIS 171 (S.C. 2006).

Opinion

Justice MOORE:

Appellant WRB Limited Partnership (Landowner) commenced this inverse condemnation action against respondent Lexington County (County) alleging that methane gas from County’s adjacent landfill contaminated Landowner’s property. 1 The trial judge granted County’s motion for summary judgment and Landowner appeals.

FACTS

The parties submitted affidavits indicating the following. Methane gas is produced as buried waste materials decay. It is a combustible and explosive gas that is hazardous in significant concentrations. To prevent the natural underground migration of methane to Landowner’s adjacent property, County took several actions required by the South Carolina Department of Environmental Control and the Environmental Protection Agency including capping the landfill, installing venting pipes, and digging a trench near the property line where a methane gas recovery system was installed.

Landowner’s expert opined that the migration of methane to Landowner’s property resulted from “the geo-synthetic cap *32 ping of [the landfill] in 2001 and the clay cap installed in 1990.” This capping diverted the vertical migration of methane and caused it to vent laterally onto Landowner’s property. County’s expert- summarily stated a contrary opinion that the capping “was not the cause of the methane gas migrating to [Landowner’s] property.”

The trial judge found that although there was a factual dispute regarding whether capping caused the migration of methane to Landowner’s property, the capping in any event was not “an affirmative, positive, aggressive act” and therefore did not support an action for inverse condemnation.

ISSUE

Is the capping of the landfill an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act to support an action for inverse condemnation?

DISCUSSION

In an action for inverse condemnation, the property owner is the moving party claiming an act of the sovereign has damaged his property to the extent of an actual taking, entitling him to compensation. Cobb v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 365 S.C. 360, 618 S.E.2d 299 (2005). Whether the plaintiff has established a claim for inverse condemnation is a matter for the court to determine. Id. To prevail in such an action, a plaintiff must prove “an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act” by the government entity that caused the alleged damage to the plaintiffs property. Berry’s On Main, Inc. v. City of Columbia, 277 S.C. 14, 16, 281 S.E.2d 796, 797 (1981); Kline v. City of Columbia, 249 S.C. 532, 535, 155 S.E.2d 597, 599 (1967).

We find our decisions in Kline, supra, and Berry’s On Main, supra, controlling on this issue. As in the case before us, these cases involved public improvements that allegedly damaged private property. In Kline, the City of Columbia was widening and improving a public street when a gas line was breached causing an explosion and fire on the neighboring property. In Berry’s On Main, the City of Columbia undertook an urban redevelopment project that involved excavating a public street. The excavations flooded during heavy rain damaging the property owner’s store. In both these cases we *33 found an affirmative, aggressive, and positive act by the local government that supported a cause of action for inverse condemnation. Cf. Collins v. City of Greenville, 233 S.C. 506, 105 S.E.2d 704 (1958) (no positive act where the city, in attempting to unclog a sewer line, caused sewage to overflow from the plaintiffs commodes damaging his property).

Here, County undertook a permanent public project in capping the landfill. Whether this action resulted in a taking is not before us. We simply find on the single element of an affirmative, aggressive, positive act that County’s action meets this requirement and summary judgment should not have been granted.

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES,'JJ., and Acting Justice KNOX McMAHON, concur.
1

. The landfill closed in 1988.

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

Related

James Marlowe v. SCDOT
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2025
James Marlowe v. SCDOT
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Ray v. City of Rock Hill
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2021
West/Hobby v. County of Newberry
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2019
Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Falmouth
119 N.E.3d 1188 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2019)
Tipperary Sales v. SCDOT
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2016
Graham v. Town of Latta
789 S.E.2d 71 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2016)
Carolina Chloride, Inc. v. Richland County
714 S.E.2d 869 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2011)
McPeake Hotels, Inc. v. Jasper's Porch, Inc.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2009
Richland County v. Carolina Chloride, Inc.
677 S.E.2d 892 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2009)
Quail Hill, LLC v. County of Richland
665 S.E.2d 194 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
630 S.E.2d 479, 369 S.C. 30, 2006 S.C. LEXIS 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrb-ltd-partnership-v-county-of-lexington-sc-2006.