Background
Gina Derry and Catherine Stone brought a quiet-title action against neighboring owners Ray and Ellen Zuber over the location of their shared boundary in Clarendon County. A special referee set the line according to the most recent survey of Derry and Stone’s property. The referee rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the Zubers had accepted a different line through their conduct and later denied a Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motion to alter or amend the judgment.
On appeal, Derry and Stone advanced several versions of the same central theory. They argued the Zubers had acquiesced in the disputed line, that the referee applied an improper duration requirement, and that equitable estoppel should prevent the Zubers from insisting on the surveyed line. They also challenged the referee’s reliance on their constructive knowledge of recorded property information, consideration of effects on the surrounding neighborhood, selection of the latest survey, and refusal to amend the order.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Although the disposition used Rule 220(b), SCACR, and largely collected controlling authorities rather than retelling the evidence, it identifies several distinct obstacles that defeated the effort to move the legal boundary away from the surveyed line.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that the challenge to the referee’s statement that acquiescence must continue for a “long period of time” was not preserved because the issue had not been raised to and ruled on below. On the merits of acquiescence, South Carolina recognizes that neighboring owners may establish a disputed boundary by accepting a line as the true boundary for a sufficient time. But acquiescence turns on the parties’ intent. The existence of a fence or other physical marker, standing alone, does not establish that both sides intended it to fix their legal boundary.
The panel also left intact the referee’s conclusion that constructive knowledge defeated the plaintiffs’ estoppel theory. Equitable estoppel generally requires the party invoking it to lack both actual knowledge and the means of learning the truth. Property owners are charged with constructive notice of instruments recorded in their chain of title. An unchallenged ruling becomes the law of the case, so a party must address every independently sufficient ground supporting the judgment.
A separate problem was the requested use of estoppel. South Carolina treats equitable estoppel as a shield, not an offensive means of acquiring a positive gain. It ordinarily must be pleaded as an affirmative defense and cannot be attached to another claim as a substitute cause of action. Once the court sustained the findings that the Zubers did not intend to accept the disputed line and that estoppel could not supply offensive relief, it had no need to decide whether hypothetical acquiescence would justify moving the boundary.
The remaining arguments failed at the appellate-record and briefing stage. The court deemed challenges concerning neighborhood effects, the controlling survey, and the Rule 59(e) ruling abandoned because the briefs were conclusory or lacked supporting authority. It also emphasized that an appellant bears the burden of supplying a record sufficient for review. The latest survey therefore remained the basis for the boundary.
Key Takeaways
- Boundary by acquiescence requires evidence that both owners intended to recognize the asserted line; a fence or other marker is not enough by itself.
- Recorded instruments in a property’s chain of title can supply constructive notice and undermine the lack-of-knowledge element of equitable estoppel.
- Equitable estoppel is generally defensive in South Carolina and cannot be used as an independent offensive device to obtain title or another positive gain.
- Boundary appeals must preserve each issue, challenge every independent ground, provide an adequate record, and support each argument with legal authority.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina real-estate litigators, Derry reinforces that long use of a visible line and legal recognition of that line are different propositions. A party relying on acquiescence should build evidence of mutual intent—communications, conduct tied specifically to ownership, historical surveys, and testimony showing both sides treated the marker as the legal boundary. Evidence that merely shows where neighbors mowed, fenced, or occupied land may leave the intent question unresolved.
The decision is also a practical appellate warning. Even a fact-intensive equity case can turn on preservation, briefing, and the record rather than a fresh balancing of competing surveys. Counsel should identify every rationale in the trial order, make the Rule 59(e) motion precise, and support each appellate issue with authority and record citations. Because the opinion is unpublished, it has no precedential value except as permitted by Rule 268(d)(2), SCACR, but its synthesis of existing South Carolina boundary and estoppel law is useful for case assessment.