Court Opinion

ID: 9569891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:18:23.14851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:13.257101
License: Public Domain

*470Howell, Chief Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part):
I concur in the majority’s characterization of Article II, finding the language creates an easement. I disagree, however, with the finding that the easement is unlocated and undelineated necessitating a further determination by the master as to the number of access points to and across the canal. It is my opinion that the master sufficiently sets forth the scope of the easement and further findings are unnecessary.
Article II creating the easement grants “all future owners of Dean Hall Plantations and Cypress Gardens . . . the right... of ingress, egress and regress to the banks of and across the canal about to be constructed ... at any point[.]” (Emphasis added.) The majority holds the language “at any point” creates an ambiguity capable of more than one understanding and, therefore, requires the master to make additional findings as to whether the Smiths, by agreement, are granted multiple access points to the canal and across the lands of CPW. I disagree.
The cardinal rule of construction is to ascertain the intention of the parties. Sandy Island Corp. v. Ragsdale, 246 S.C. 414, 143 S.E. (2d) 803 (1965). The easement, therefore, should be construed so as to carry out the intention of the parties.
Article II creates in all future owners of Dean Hall Plantation an easement that would afford them full enjoyment of the canal and banks contiguous to their property. Reviewing the agreement in its entirety, the intention of the parties appears to be the creation of unrestricted and unencumbered use in a manner consistent with unrestricted and unencumbered ownership of the fee on both sides of the waterway. It is my opinion that the words “to the banks of and across” intended to grant full enjoyment restricted only by Article III which prohibits activity that would disturb the quiet enjoyment of the banks and waterway, i.e., the use of outboard motors or shooting.
I would, therefore,
Affirm as modified.