Nelums v. Cousins, 403 S.E.2d 681 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Nelums v. Cousins, 403 S.E.2d 681 (S.C. Ct. App. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …the determination of the existence of an easement is a question of fact in a law action and the trial court's findings must be affirmed unless there is no evidence to support them. at p. 682 ✓
32 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Trudy B. Mattox v. Benjamin J. Russell and Chere Mitchell (scctapp, 2023-02-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Trudy B. Mattox v. Benjamin J. Russell and Chere Mitchell (3×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the determination of the existence of an easement is a question of fact in a law action and the trial court's findings must be affirmed unless there is no evidence to support them.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C. Barry Dykes v. Wild Wing Company, LLC
S.C. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Coast Builders & Contractors, LLC v. Lewis, 398 S.C. 323, 329 , 730 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2012) ("[A]n unappealed ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case."); Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 307 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 681-82 (Ct. App. 1991) (finding an issue was "not preserved for appellate review since the [circuit] court was never afforded the opportunity to rule on the clarity of its order because [the appellant] made no motion, as she was required to do, pursuant to Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP]").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meswaet Abel v. Lack's Beach Service
S.C. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422 , 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) ("If the losing party has raised an issue in the lower court, but the court fails to rule upon it, the party must file a motion to alter or amend the judgment in order to preserve the issue for appellate review."); Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 307 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 681-82 (Ct. App. 1991) (explaining an issue was not preserved for appellate review because "the trial court was never afforded the opportunity to rule on the clarity of its order" when the appellant failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crescent Homes SC, LLC v. CJN, LLC
S.C. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Coop., Inc., 419 S.C. 223 , 797 S.E.2d 387 (2016); Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 307-08 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 681-82 (Ct. App. 1991) (per curiam) (finding a trial court's alleged failure to clarify and specify whether an easement was by necessity or was a prescriptive easement was not preserved, when the appellant had made no motion to amend the judgment). 20 Crescent also contends in this section the master relied upon erroneous findings of fact.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ESA Services, LLC v. South Carolina Department of Revenue
S.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Dep’t of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556, 563 , 677 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2009) (permitting Rule 59(e), SCRCP, motions in ALC proceedings); Revis v. Barrett, 321 S.C. 206, 210 , 467 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.1996) (holding issue was not preserved on appeal when appellants never filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to clarify the order pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP, nor sought clarification pursuant to Rule 60(a), SCRCP); Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 307-08 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 681-82 (Ct.App.1991) (finding trial court’s alleged failure to clarify discrepancies in written order was not preserved when…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. Daley (3×) also: Cited "see"
S.C. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Relying on the case of Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 308 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 682 (Ct.App.1991), the referee incorrectly stated the elements of establishing a prescriptive easement as twenty years of use which is “adverse, exclusive, continuous, *316 and uninterrupted and occurred under claim of right and with the knowledge or acquiescence of [the] owner of [the] servient estate or predecessors in title.” Applying these elements, he concluded Jones failed to establish an easement because “there is no exclusive use of the premises nor was the use by the Plaintiffs predecessors in title ho…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. Morris
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Talley , 289 S.C. at 487 , 347 S.E.2d at 101 (stating that an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge in order to be preserved for review); Nelums v. Cousins 304 S.C. 306, 307-08 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 681-82 (Ct. App. 1991) (finding appellant’s argument that the judge failed to be specific in his order not preserved for review because no Rule 59(e) motion was made asking the judge to clarify the order).
discussed Cited "see" Blake v. Cannon (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306 , 403 S.E. (2d) 681 (Ct. App. 1991) (Court will not address argument that fails to challenge the trial court’s ruling on a dispositive issue in the case).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ex Parte: DeBordieu v. The Belle W. Baruch Foundation (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Cleland v. Westvaco Corp., 314 S.C. 508, 511 , 431 S.E.2d 264 , 266–67 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting an unsuccessful argument for public rights did not necessarily defeat an individual claim for an easement); see also Nelums v. Cousins, 304 S.C. 306, 308 , 403 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1991) (finding a plaintiff's prescriptive easement claim was asserted independent of use by others).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rev. J.R.A. NELUMS, Respondent
v.
Jo COUSINS, Appellant
1643.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Apr 22, 1991.
403 S.E.2d 681
1991 S.C. App. LEXIS 65
John K. Koon, Columbia, for appellant., Samuel M. Price, Jr., Newberry, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 61%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (1)
Per Curiam:

The Reverend J.R.A. Nelums sued Jo Cousins after Cousins constructed a gate on her property that prevented Nelums from traveling to his property along a road that he and his family have been using since his father purchased the property in 1908. This road proceeds through Cousins’ property. The dispositive issue is whether any evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Nelums had obtained a prescriptive easement across Cousins’ property. We affirm.

1. We need not consider any of Cousins’ eleven exceptions since none of them challenges the trial court’s ruling on the dispositive issue in this case. See Dwyer v. Tom Jenkins Realty, Inc., 289 S.C. 118, 344 S.E. (2d) 886 (Ct. App. 1986) (a judgment will not be disturbed where unchallenged findings are sufficient to support the judgment).

The only exception that even mentions prescriptive easement alleges the trial court erred by “failing to clarify and specify whether this right of way was an easement by necessity or a prescriptive easement.” This exception is clearly incorrect since the trial court’s order specifically states “the case at bar relates to a prescriptive easement.” Moreover, it is not preserved for appellate review since the trial court was never afforded the opportunity to rule on the clarity of its order because Cousins made no motion, as she was required to do, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. See Talley v. South Carolina Higher Education Tuition Grants Committee, 289 S.C. 483, 347 S.E. (2d) 99 (1986) (an issue not ruled on by the[*308] trial judge is not preserved unless the complaining party moves before the trial court to amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), SCRCP).

2. Even if the dispositive issue was properly before us, the judgment must be affirmed.

The determination of the existence of an easement is a question of fact in a law action and the trial court’s findings must be affirmed unless there is no evidence to support them. Jowers v. Hornsby, 292 S.C. 549, 357 S.E. (2d) 710 (1987); Boyd v. Hyatt, 294 S.C. 360, 364 S.E. (2d) 478 (Ct. App. 1988). To establish a private right of way by prescription over Cousins’ property, Nelums was required to show his use and enjoyment was adverse, under a claim of right, exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted, and with the knowledge or acquiescence of Cousins or of her predecessors in title. Shia v. Pendergrass, 222 S.C. 342, 72 S.E. (2d) 699 (1952).

In Cousins’ brief, she challenges only the exclusive nature of Nelums’ claim and argues that since others have used this road through her property, Nelums’ use was not exclusive. We disagree. Nelums’ claim of right, to get to his property, was asserted independently of any use by other individuals. See Petus v. Keeling, 232 Va. 483, 352 S.E. (2d) 321 (1987) (the court affirmed the finding of a prescriptive easement even though evidence was presented that other property owners in the area used the road, individuals who hunted and fished in the area used the road, and general members of the public used the road to travel to schools and cemeteries, because the plaintiffs right, to get to his property, was asserted independently of other users).

Affirmed.