Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2014-002742 Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-357
07-06-2016
AMH-Ashley Marina, LLC, and AMH Management, LLC, Appellants, v. The Harborage at Ashley Marina Horizontal Property Regime, The Harborage at Ashley Marina Condominium Association, Eddie McCoy, Stuart Reeves, Brian Swan, Rich Cone, and Ed Miskotten, individually, Respondents.
Edward K. Pritchard, III and Elizabeth Fraysure Fulton, both of Pritchard Law Group LLC, of Charleston, for Appellants. Michael A. Timbes and Thomas James Rode, both of Thurmond Kirchner Timbes & Yelverton, P.A., of Charleston, for Respondents.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. Appeal From Charleston County
Mikell R. Scarborough, Master-in-Equity
AFFIRMED
Edward K. Pritchard, III and Elizabeth Fraysure Fulton, both of Pritchard Law Group LLC, of Charleston, for Appellants. Michael A. Timbes and Thomas James Rode, both of Thurmond Kirchner Timbes & Yelverton, P.A., of Charleston, for Respondents. 2 PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hamin, 368 S.C. 536, 540, 629 S.E.2d 683, 685 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Declaratory judgment actions are neither legal nor equitable, and therefore, the standard of review depends on the nature of the underlying issues."); Heritage Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Eagle Lake & Golf Condos., 318 S.C. 535, 539, 458 S.E.2d 561, 564 (Ct. App. 1995) ("The interpretation of a deed is an equitable matter."); id. (stating that in matters of equity, this court "review[s] the evidence to determine the facts in accordance with [its] view of the preponderance of the evidence"); Kinard v. Richardson, 407 S.C. 247, 257, 754 S.E.2d 888, 893 (Ct. App. 2014) (noting that a restrictive covenant is an agreement to do or not to do certain things with respect to real property); Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Marshland Trust, Inc., 358 S.C. 655, 661, 596 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting that restrictive covenants are voluntary contracts); Hardy v. Aiken, 369 S.C. 160, 166, 631 S.E.2d 539, 542 (2006) ("[A] restriction on the use of the property . . . [is] to be strictly construed, with all doubts resolved in favor of the free use of property." (alteration in original) (quoting Hamilton v. CCM, Inc., 274 S.C. 152, 157, 263 S.E.2d 378, 380 (1980))); Sea Pines Plantation Co. v. Wells, 294 S.C. 266, 270, 363 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1987) ("Courts shall enforce such covenants unless they are indefinite or contravene public policy."); N. Am. Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Richardson, 411 S.C. 371, 379, 769 S.E.2d 237, 241 (2015) (providing that "agreements to agree in the future have no legal effect" and are void for indefiniteness). AFFIRMED. LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.