Opinion ID: 2501256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Definition of Contiguity

Text: The resolution of the challenge regarding the definition of contiguity revolves around two issues: (1) whether ownership of property for purposes of section 5-1-20(2) requires fee simple ownership or embraces other possessory interests such as easements and right of ways and (2) whether an area seeking to incorporate can use publicly-owned property to affirmatively establish and create contiguity with another area. Town argues that a strict interpretation of the definition of ownership contravenes the express intent of the General Assembly, and we agree. As to precise application of contiguity, Appellants urge us to focus on the words but for contained in the statute and argue for a stricter interpretation of contiguity. Town, on the other hand, argues for a broader view of contiguity, in essence arguing that so long as unincorporated areas can be connected by publicly-owned propertyeven if that includes running down public roads to do sothe incorporating area has met the contiguity requirement. [7] As to this issue, we agree with Appellants. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature must prevail if it reasonably can be discerned from the words used in the statute. Eagle Container Co. v. County of Newberry, 379 S.C. 564, 571, 666 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2008). These words must be construed in context and in light of the intended purpose of the statute in a manner which harmonizes with its subject matter and accords with its general purpose. Id. at 570, 666 S.E.2d at 896. The meaning of certain words can be ascertained by reference to associated words in the statute. Id. However, if the language is plain and unambiguous, we must enforce the plain and clear meaning of the words used. Id. But if applying the plain language would lead to an absurd result, we will interpret the words in such a way as to escape the absurdity. Ventures S.C., LLC v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 378 S.C. 5, 9, 661 S.E.2d 339, 341 (2008). A merely conjectural absurdity is not enough; the result must be so patently absurd that it is clear that the [General Assembly] could not have intended such a result. Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office, 381 S.C. 357, 363 n. 1, 673 S.E.2d 423, 426 n. 1 (2009). The current version of the incorporation statutes generally states that areas seeking to incorporate must be contiguous, meaning they are adjacent and share a continuous border. S.C.Code Ann. § 5-1-30(A)(4). However, if publicly-owned property intervenes between two areas sought to be incorporated together as one, which but for that property would be contiguous, then they are still considered contiguous for incorporation purposes. Id. In other words, contiguity is not destroyed by that publicly-owned property. Id. Publicly-owned property is any federally-owned, state-owned, or county-owned land or water. Id. § 5-1-20(2). Publicly-owned property will not destroy contiguity even if it already has been annexed by an existing municipality. Id. § 5-1-24(A)(2). In addition to the plain language of these particular provisions, the General Assembly included various policy statements in the code and in Act 77 regarding incorporation. Section 5-1-22 of the South Carolina Code (Supp.2010) reads, The General Assembly finds and declares the following to be the public policy of the State of South Carolina: (1) publicly-owned property may be incorporated or annexed by a municipality as provided by the state's statutory law; however, publicly-owned property is for the benefit of all citizens of the State and is not the exclusive territory of any one municipality; and (2) incorporation or annexation of publicly-owned property does not confer or convey to a municipality control over the publicly-owned property that in any way: (a) interferes with the superior authority of the federal, state, or county government; or (b) prevents an area seeking to be incorporated from using the publicly-owned property to establish contiguity as provided in Section 5-1-30(A)(4). The preamble to Act 77 contains similar language: Whereas, municipal boundaries are limited only by the state's statutory law requirements; and Whereas, some municipalities already extend across county lines; and Whereas, if a publicly-owned property, such as a road or waterway, is within the exclusive territory of a single municipality, that municipality could extend its boundaries across the State, preventing areas that otherwise meet the statutory requirements for municipal incorporation from attaining local self-governance; and Whereas, the General Assembly finds and declares that publicly-owned property is for the benefit of all citizens of the State and not to be used as the exclusive territory of any one municipality. We do not read the word owned as being limited to only fee simple ownership. When federal, state, county, or local governments have an interest in a road, there is little else the fee simple owner can do with that property. Not only does the evidence before us show that these bodies hold their interests in perpetuity, but should the fee simple owner object to the government's use, the government could simply condemn the property and take title in fee simple. In these instances, there is little, if anything, the private owner could do to the detriment of the rights he or his predecessor granted to the public body. For all intents and purposes, the government therefore is the owner of the property for purposes of incorporation. As evidence of the absurdity created by Appellants' position, Town points out that one of the roads in question in this case has two owners: the inner two lanes of it are privately owned with the state holding a right of way, while the state owns the outer two lanes in fee simple. Declaring only one-half of the road to be publicly-owned property, while the general populace has an equal right to use the entirety of it regardless of which lane they happen to be traveling in, cannot be the result intended by the General Assembly. Such a result would be contrary to the General Assembly's express intent of fostering incorporation by not permitting public roads and waterways to destroy the required contiguity. The thrust of property being publicly-owned is that it be for the benefit of the public, which is not dictated solely by who owns the underlying earth. However, we disagree with Town and the circuit court as to the ultimate application of the principle of contiguity. We agree with Appellants that the but for language used in section 5-1-30(A)(4) means that if the publicly-owned property simply were to be removed, the question is whether the properties then share a continuous border. [8] The record compiled by the parties for this appeal contains numerous, well-executed exhibits illustrating this principle. Perhaps the most convincing exhibits illustrated the but for concept of contiguity in a MAD Magazine style back-page folding manner, [9] where a map of two areas alleged to be contiguous was folded in such a manner as to eliminate the previously-annexed publicly-owned property. As an added illustration, the language of the statute requires taking a zipper and closing up the publicly-owned property so that it does not exist for these purposes. It is only then that one truly can determine if but for that publicly-owned property would the areas touch. While the specific property lines and geographic configuration of some areas may make this analysis somewhat difficult, every effort must be made to close up the publicly-owned property in question for purposes of this analysis. Under the analysis accepted by the circuit court and argued by Town, publicly-owned property may not be the only thing between the areas sought to be incorporated, yet the areas would still be contiguous. In numerous instances, for example, once the publicly-owned property was removed from the equation, other properties already annexed by Charleston intervened between what Town seeks to incorporate. In those cases, it is only by traversing the length of the road and around these other properties that one can connect the properties claimed to be contiguous. This affirmative use of publicly-owned property to establish contiguity ignores the plain but for language contained therein. Furthermore, it improperly inverts the language that publicly-owned property does not destroy contiguity into the proposition that publicly-owned property can affirmatively establish it. Town argues that this construction of contiguity is contrary to the stated public policy of more freedom in using publicly-owned property for purposes of incorporation. Indeed, we just concluded supra that the strict interpretation of the word owned contravenes that policy and the intent of the General Assembly. However, the same is not true when applying the plain language of the contiguity definition. The code provides that publicly-owned property is for the benefit of all citizens of the State and is not the exclusive territory of any one municipality. Id. § 5-1-22(1). It also states that no municipality can exercise control over publicly-owned property in any way that prevents it from being used to establish contiguity under section 5-1-30(A)(4). Id. § 5-1-22(2)(b) (citing id. § 5-1-30(A)(4)). Those provisions, however, do not create an unfettered right inuring to unincorporated areas to use publicly-owned property for incorporation purposes. Instead, they specifically refer to and are controlled by the statute governing contiguity. Nothing in our interpretation of contiguity would enable an existing municipality to prevent an area seeking to incorporate from using publicly-owned property, and nothing places it in the hands of any one municipality. What prevents Town from using certain parcels of publicly-owned property to establish contiguity is not the manner in which Charleston uses it, but the limitations imposed by the statute. Therefore, while we found strict adherence to the plain language of the definition of publicly-owned property produced results contrary to the express intent of the General Assembly, nothing compels us to do the same here. We must ensure that the absurd results exception to the plain language rule of statutory construction remains an exception and apply it only when the absurdity is clear. See Harris, 381 S.C. at 363 n. 1, 673 S.E.2d at 426 n. 1 (While we may be concerned with the unintended consequences of applying the clear meaning of [the statute] in every conceivable circumstance, such concerns in this case fall short of an absurdity that would warrant applying this rule of statutory construction.). Here, we find no patent violation of the public policy announced by the General Assembly. Accordingly, we adhere to the plain language of the definition of contiguity and require incorporating areas with issues pertaining to contiguity to conceptually eliminate publicly-owned property from the map of their proposed boundaries and determine if the properties would then touch. [10]