Zoning Considerations: Developers' Reliance on Representations by the County
Quail Hill v.
Plaintiff bought property from the government in reliance on representations by County officers and staff regarding zoning. During that time,
Once plaintiff bought the parcel, he submitted a site plan for approval by the county. The Planning Commission approved the site plan and plaintiff subdivided the parcel and added some manufactured homes. A year later, it turned out the zoning prohibited manufactured homes and the county ordered the developer to stop of further development. By then, five of the twenty lots had already been sold and some purchasers already got permits to install manufactured homes. Plaintiff then sued the County asking for an injunction (stop the County order to cease development). The trial court rendered judgment for the County.
Plaintiff made several allegations that the court of appeals reviewed. Plaintiff alleged converse condemnation against the County, which means the government imposed such affirmative and aggressive limitations on property use that such limitations caused the specified damage to the property. The court of appeals, however, pointed out that all the county did was a mistake, which does not constitute an affirmative an aggressive act.
The purchaser further alleged negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the County. This time the court sided with plaintiff and found that the trial court was wrong in rendering judgment for the County as a matter of law. The court recognized that a government entity is immune from tort claims unless a private party would be liable for breach of that same duty under South Carolina
This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.
Plaintiff bought property from the government in reliance on representations by County officers and staff regarding zoning. During that time,
Once plaintiff bought the parcel, he submitted a site plan for approval by the county. The Planning Commission approved the site plan and plaintiff subdivided the parcel and added some manufactured homes. A year later, it turned out the zoning prohibited manufactured homes and the county ordered the developer to stop of further development. By then, five of the twenty lots had already been sold and some purchasers already got permits to install manufactured homes. Plaintiff then sued the County asking for an injunction (stop the County order to cease development). The trial court rendered judgment for the County.
Plaintiff made several allegations that the court of appeals reviewed. Plaintiff alleged converse condemnation against the County, which means the government imposed such affirmative and aggressive limitations on property use that such limitations caused the specified damage to the property. The court of appeals, however, pointed out that all the county did was a mistake, which does not constitute an affirmative an aggressive act.
The purchaser further alleged negligence and negligent misrepresentation against the County. This time the court sided with plaintiff and found that the trial court was wrong in rendering judgment for the County as a matter of law. The court recognized that a government entity is immune from tort claims unless a private party would be liable for breach of that same duty under South Carolina
This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.
Comments