South Carolina Lawyers Weekly
Although there is a four-inch overlap in the deed descriptions of (1) a 26.6-acre tract that lies within the City of Charleston and (2) a one-acre tract owned and annexed by the City of North Charleston, since North Charleston annexed its one-acre tract pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 5-3-100, which allows annexations of property owned by the annexing municipality, and since North Charleston does not claim ownership or annexation of the four-inch overlap, Charleston and the owner of the 26.6-acre tract lack standing to challenge North Charleston’s annexation of its one-acre tract.
We affirm the circuit court’s determination that respondents lacked standing.
In a deed transferring a one-acre tract to the City of North Charleston, there is a four-inch overlap with a deed transferring about 26.6 acres of property to the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Charleston had already annexed the National Trust property when North Charleston annexed its one-acre tract pursuant to § 5-3-100.
Respondents Charleston and the National Trust filed suit, contending that North Charleston’s one-acre tract is not adjacent to North Charleston, so it could not be annexed under § 5-3-100: “If the territory proposed to be annexed belongs entirely to the municipality seeking its annexation and is adjacent thereto, the territory may be annexed by resolution of the governing body of the municipality.”
In its order, the circuit court found North Charleston did not claim to annex or own any portion of the National Trust parcel and any deviations in the legal description or plat did not affect Charleston’s or the National Trust’s ownership rights. The circuit court therefore found respondents lacked standing to challenge the annexation because North Charleston only intended to annex the property that it owned. Thus, respondents did not “have the requisite ownership to challenge the annexation.”
We agree with the circuit court. Section 5-3-100 is a method for annexation when the municipality wholly owns the property to be annexed.
North Charleston annexed the one-acre tract pursuant to § 5-3-100 via the city’s annexation ordinance. Thus, although there is a four-inch deviation in the proposed plat, we find North Charleston only sought to annex the property within its proprietary rights. In mapping the boundaries of the one-acre tract, the proposed plat relied on previously recorded plats of easements across the National Trust tract.
Further, the legal description in the annexation ordinance stated North Charleston sought to annex property “consisting of approximately 1.0 acres.” Even if North Charleston believed it owned the contested four inches, it would be of no consequence.
Accordingly, we hold the circuit court properly found respondents lacked standing to challenge North Charleston’s annexation of the acre.
In addition, the circuit court did not err in holding respondents did not have standing under the public interest doctrine. Although our precedent has not yet addressed whether the term “adjacent” within § 5-3-100 requires contiguity, which is specifically required for municipal annexations under § 5-3-150, respondents have failed to demonstrate that North Charleston’s annexation of the acre incites anything more than a boundary dispute between two municipalities. Further, the absence of a challenge to the annexation by the state is illustrative of the state’s position on whether the matter rises to a level of public concern. Respondents have also failed to show any deceitful conduct by North Charleston that would necessitate finding standing under the public interest doctrine.
Affirmed.
National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. City of North Charleston (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-009-23, 7 pp.) (Bruce Williams, C.J.) Appealed from Charleston County Circuit Court (Eugene Griffith, J.) Derk Van Raalte and Brady Hair for appellant/respondent; George Trenholm Walker, Anne Elizabeth Nelson, Frances Isaac Cantwell, Julia Parker Copeland, Wilbur Johnson and Russell Grainger Hines for respondents/appellants. S.C. App.
