SEABROOK ISLAND – A dispute between neighbors over a drainage pipe reached the SC Supreme Court last year, and judges recently ruled that the years’ case will be resolved with just $ 1,000 in damages.
It is not uncommon for Lowcountry neighbors, prone to flooding, to come into conflict over drainage issues, but few cases reach the state’s highest court.
The seeds of the legal conflict were planted in 2002, when Paul Dennis McLaughlin and Susan Rode McLaughlin bought land on the island to build a house there, according to court documents. Their lot, like that of neighbors Richard Ralph and Eugenia Ralph, had a “no-go zone” with a corroded underground drain pipe.
A different drainage line on the next golf course was installed in the same year. The McLaughlins then spent the next six years talking to the Island Property Owners’ Association about whether they could build on the section of their land with the old pipe. They finally got permission to do so and, in 2008, asked the builders to remove their share.
The Ralphs, however, protested that the corroded line was still helping to drain rain from their backyard. When the McLaughlin section was removed, the Ralphs said the floods on their property had worsened.
Ainsley Tillman, a lawyer for the Ralphs, said the couple’s backyard has ponds after it rains, and standing water drowned the trees on the property.
This is what prompted the couple to open their original lawsuit, alleging intentional rape and infliction of emotional suffering, and asking for hundreds of thousands of damages. After a test, they received only $ 1,000; despite the victory, they appealed the value of the court’s sentence.
An appeals court agreed that there could only be a retrial on the amount of damages awarded. This is the decision that the state Supreme Court reversed on March 17 in a unanimous decision that reinstated the $ 1,000 payment and closed the case.
Tillman said his clients think $ 1,000 is inadequate. In addition, the legal fees the Ralphs have spent so far “have not been insignificant,” said Tillman, but she declined to say exactly how big the bill was.
McLaughlins’ lawyer Hamlin O’Kelley declined to comment on the case and said his clients would not comment either.
But the saga may not be over: Tillman said the Ralphs are deciding whether to ask the Supreme Court to reassess the case, as they expect further damage.
“When you are deciding whether or not to appeal a case, they weigh the cost of litigation against damage to your property,” said Tillman. “This is the type of balance test.”
Talk to Chloe Johnson at 843-735-9985. Follow her on Twitter @_ChloeAJ.