Court Opinion

ID: 9611760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:59:59.734102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:49.436147
License: Public Domain

*454ANDERSON, Judge,
(concurs in part and dissents in part):
I concur as to Issue I. However, I respectfully dissent as to the majority’s holding with respect to Issue II.
The majority states the City claims the Master’s amended order is violative of S.C.Code Ann. § 5-7-30 (Supp.1998). Apodictically, the City relied on the statute and the position asserted throughout this litigation, i.e., the walkways were dedicated for public use.
The elixir of this case is the issue relating to the City’s and/or public’s right to use walkways as an entrance and exit to the Atlantic Ocean (Grand Strand) in Horry County. The majority sidesteps that issue by ruling the City only relies upon § 5-7-30. I disagree.
Here, the issue was ruled on by the court. The issue was the right of the public to use the walkways. On reconsideration, the court ruled on the same issue again. The City, in argument to the Circuit judge and in oral argument before this Court, insisted it relied on the “dedication of right of way” issue and the statutory discretion position. The majority concludes the ground for the ruling is not preserved. I disagree.
To perfect dedication, two elements are required: (1) the owner must express in a positive and unmistakable manner the intention to dedicate his property to public use; and (2) there must be acceptance of such property by the public. Tupper v. Dorchester County, 326 S.C. 318, 487 S.E.2d 187 (1997). Proof of dedication must be strict, cogent, and convincing. Id.
Adverting to the merits, there is no common law or statutory authority allowing a court to invade-a public right of way created by dedication. This case is a paradigm of dedicatory endeavor flowing from the original owner’s activities in filing a plat and creating a subdivision with streets and right of ways.
The landowner, Charles Ingram, subdivided his tract of land through a platting procedure using A.L. Ervin, a civil engineer. Ervin’s plat depicts the five foot walkways and identifies them as public walkways. Additionally, the Van Blarcums used a plat at the time of their purchase which delineates the walkways with exactitude. Ingram’s intent can be gleaned with *455absolute accuracy from the subdividing and platting activity. Apodictieally, Ingram’s intent was to preserve forever the walkways on behalf of the public in general and the South Carolina citizenry in particular.
Applying Twpper, supra, to the case at bar, one comes to the adamantine conclusion that dedication of the walkways resulted from Ingram’s activities and his clear intent. In regard to element two, the evidentiary record demonstrates with uncanny accuracy the public acceptance of the property offered for dedication.
I would reverse this part of the Master’s order and reinstate the unfettered right of the City to mark the walkways on each side for public use.