Goldman v. RBC, Inc.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals David W. Goldman and Emilie E. Goldman, Respondents, v. RBC, Inc., Appellants. Appeal From Sumter County Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-362 Submitted May 13, 2004 – Filed June 4, 2004 AFFIRMED James Edward Bell, III, of Sumter, for Appellant. Kristi F. Curtis, of Sumter, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: RBC, Inc. appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to David and Emily Goldman in this action to quiet title to a railroad track adjacent to the Goldmans’ property. RBC contends that its predecessor in interest acquired a fee simple in the property because the owners did not apply for an assessment or compensation within ten years of the railroad’s completion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Faulkenberry v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 349 S.C. 318, 325, 563 S.E.2d 644, 648 (2002) (“We adhere to the wealth of authority in this state and hold that [the statutory grants] created only an easement in the [r]ailroads.”); Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 331 S.C. 398, 503 S.E.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding that a railroad’s interest acquired through a statutory presumption of grant is a mere easement under South Carolina law). AFFIRMED. HEARN, C.J., ANDERSON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.