Court Opinion

ID: 9872152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:55:17.049466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:57.493334
License: Public Domain

ACTING JUSTICE PLEICONES:
I respectfully concur in result only, and would dismiss certiorari as improvidently granted rather than affirm as modified. In my opinion, the Court of Appeals properly construed the term “developed” in the context of the document in which it appears. E.g., Reyhani v. Stone Creek Cove Condo, II Horizontal Prop. Regime, 329 S.C. 206, 494 S.E.2d 465 (Ct. *165App. 1997). I fear that by dictating the meaning of the terms “developed” and “improved,” the majority may inadvertently alter the meaning of documents, Reyhani, supra, or create a conflict with legislative enactments. E.g., S. C. Code Ann. § 29-6-10 (2) (2007) (defining “improve” in the subchapter governing payments to contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers). Because I agree with the majority that the decision of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed, I concur in that result here.
FEW, J., concurs.