Did a disused South Carolina railroad right of way revert to neighboring owners?

Plain-English summary

A legislator forwarded questions about Beaufort County's proposed purchase of the Port Royal Railroad right of way. One question alleged possible State Ethics Act violations; another asked whether the right of way would return to neighboring owners after railway use ended. The Attorney General decided neither dispute. It said the State Ethics Commission had authority to investigate ethics complaints and interpret the Act. Whether the railroad easement was abandoned depended on facts a court would have to resolve.

The letter noted that a railroad easement could be abandoned, but mere nonuse did not establish abandonment. It did not determine the legal status of this right of way or any adjacent owner's title.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the right of way automatically revert when trains stopped using it?
A: The AG said nonuse alone did not establish abandonment. It left this property's status to a court after review of the facts.

Q: Did the AG decide whether the county violated ethics law in the proposed purchase?
A: No. The opinion identified the State Ethics Commission as the body authorized to investigate alleged violations and interpret the State Ethics Act.

Background and statutory framework

Section 8-13-320 (9) and (11) described the Ethics Commission's complaint and advisory-opinion roles. The AG cited Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v. Crouch for the possibility of abandoning a railroad easement and Lorick and Lowrance, Inc. v. Southern Railway Company for the rule that nonuse alone was insufficient. It gave no factual finding on the Port Royal route.

Citations

• Section 8-13-320 (9)
• Section 8-13-320 (11)
• Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v. Crouch
• Lorick and Lowrance, Inc. v. Southern Railway Company

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-24-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04aug-24-Ceips.pdf

Original opinion text

'

"· \

I

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMASTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL

I
I

August 24, 2004

The Honorable Catherine C. Ceips
Member, House of Representatives
1207 Bay Street
Beaufort, South Carolina 29902
Dear Representative Ceips:
In a letter to this office you forwarded an inquiry by Mr. Thomas Logan with regard to the Port Royal Railroad right of way. He indicates that Beaufort County has entered into negotiations with the State Ports Authority to purchase a railroad right of way. Mr. Logan has raised questions concerning possible violations of the State Ethics Act with regard to activity by Beaufort County. He also raises the question of what happens to a railroad right of way once the right of way ceases to function as a railway. In such circumstances, he asks whether the right of way reverts back to the original adjacent landowners.

L

With regard to possible violations of the State Ethics Act, S.C. Code Ann. Sections

· -8----B~ 100 et sc~ .. (Supp. 2GG3), s·uch matters are within ~;.e jurisdiction of the Statt Ettfi{;~ -·· Commission. Pursuant to Section 8-13-320 (9), the Commission is authorized "to initiate or receive complaints and make investigations" of alleged violations of the State Ethics Act. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 8-13-320 (11), the State Ethics Commission is authorized to issue advisory opinions construing the Ethics Act. Therefore, the Ethics Commission is the appropriate body to construe possible violations of the Ethics Act. Admittedly, courts have concluded that a railroad easement can be abandoned. Saluda Motor Lines, Inc. v. Crouch, 300 S.C. 43, 386 S.E.2d 290 (Ct.App. 1989). However, courts have also held that the_mere nonuse does not constitute abandonment in that the matter of abandonment depends on the facts and circumstances. Lorick and Lowrance, Inc. v. Southern Railway Company, 87 S.C. 71, 68 S.E. 931 (1910). As a result, a court must generally make a determination ofthe issue of abandonment of an easement. Therefore, with regard to the question regarding the status of the railroad right of way, a complete review of all the facts involved here would be needed to make a determination as to your question. Such is beyond the province of this office in the issuance of an opinion in that this office has

J

/~,,, /,

~C. ,f>ENNJs BVll..DING • Posr OmcE Box 11549 • CowMBlA, S.C. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

p.. /

v. .J-Tr:

The Honorable Catherine C. Ceips
Page2
August 24, 2004

repeatedly stated that an opinion of the Attorney General cannot detennine facts or resolve factual issues. Op. Atty. Gen. dated December 12, 1983. As a result, as to the questions relating to what happens to the railroad right of way referenced in your letter, only a court may satisfactorily resolve such issue. I regret that we cannot be of more assistance at this time.

I
I

Sincerely,

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

til~~,}r v {m
I

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General