Kennedy v. Bedenbaugh
South Carolina Supreme Court
352 S.C. 56, 572 S.E.2d 452 (2002)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Dan and Christine Kennedy (plaintiffs) acquired a tract of land that adjoined a tract owned by George Bedenbaugh (defendant). The Kennedy tract did not connect directly to any roads in the area, so the Kennedys sued Bedenbaugh to establish an easement by necessity over Bedenbaugh’s tract. A century earlier, Jacob Lindler had owned both tracts, which at that time formed a single property. When Lindler subdivided his property, he conveyed what became the Kennedy tract to S. B. Holley. The deed mentioned an easement connecting the tract to a nearby road. A few years later, Lindler conveyed what became the Bedenbaugh tract to Holley and his wife, C. D. Holley, who held the tract as tenants in common until Mrs. Holley died. Mrs. Holley left only a life estate to Mr. Holley, with remainder interests passing to the couple’s children. Thereafter, and until Bedenbaugh and the Kennedys acquired their titles decades later, the two tracts went through a complex succession of owners, none of whom owned both tracts at the same time. The trial court granted summary judgment for Bedenbaugh, ruling that the Kennedys could not prove the requisite unity of title. The Kennedys appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
