Opinion ID: 2112342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of the Easement

Text: Appellants argue the special referee erred in finding a valid easement because the language in the 1924 deed was too vague to create an easement. We disagree. The determination of the existence of an easement is a question of fact in a law action and subject to an any evidence standard of review when tried by a judge without a jury. Hardy v. Aiken, 369 S.C. 160, 165, 631 S.E.2d 539, 541 (2006). Therefore, this Court will not overturn a trial court's finding that an easement exists unless that conclusion is controlled by an error of law or without evidentiary support. See S.C. Const. art. V, § 5 (providing this state's appellate courts have jurisdiction to correct trial court's erroneous legal findings in law and equity cases); Hardy, 369 S.C. at 165, 631 S.E.2d at 541. Appellants contend the 1924 deed did not describe the boundaries of the easement adequately to create a valid easement. The special referee, however, found the deed gives the dimensions of the easement and sufficiently refers to the boundaries. See Binkley v. Rabon Creek Watershed, 348 S.C. 58, 72, 558 S.E.2d 902, 909 (Ct.App.2001) (It is not essential to the validity of a grant of an easement that it be described by metes and bounds or by figures giving definite dimensions of the easement.). The special referee's findings are supported by evidence in the record; therefore, the special referee did not err in concluding a valid easement was created by the 1924 deed. The special referee then found that because the 1924 deed created a valid easement, and because Horry County conveyed that easement to the state highway department in 1930, Horry County did not have title to the easement when it gave B & C a quitclaim deed in 1979. Therefore, SCDOT retains valid title to the easement.