Seabrook Island Property Owners Association v. Pelzer
South Carolina Court of Appeals
356 S.E.2d 411 (1987)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
The Seabrook Island Property Owners Association (the association) (plaintiff), a nonprofit corporation, was created to preserve the amenities of the Seabrook Island community and to maintain its roads, open spaces, and landscaping. Randolph Pelzer (defendant) owned two lots on Seabrook Island, one improved and one unimproved. The association sued Pelzer to collect unpaid maintenance assessments for 1984 on Pelzer’s two lots. Pelzer alleged that the assessments were invalid and counterclaimed for a refund of assessments that he had paid in previous years. The trial court entered judgment for the association on its claim and dismissed Pelzer’s counterclaim. Pelzer appealed, arguing argued that the association had been improperly assessing his properties based on a flat-fee system for the maintenance charges in violation of the restrictive covenants and bylaws, which required that the maintenance assessments be based on the value of the property fixed by the county tax assessor. The association argued that the bylaws, which permitted the association to set different rates for improved and unimproved property, authorized it to use a fixed rate for maintenance charges and that its flat-rate fees were reasonable and the result of the association’s business judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.