laches doctrine in South Carolina

2024Counsel for Lee Cnty., 315 S.C. 418, 421 , 434 S.E.2d 279, 280 (1993) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights, does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights.").

2024Counsel for Lee Cnty., 315 S.C. 418, 421 , 434 S.E.2d 279, 280 (1993) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights, does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights.").

2004See Muir, 336 S.C. at 296-97 , 519 S.E.2d at 598-99 (affirming the *613 commissioner’s finding that the claim was not barred by the doctrine of laches because claimant did not act unreasonably in pursuing the claim); McMillan v. Midlands Human Res., 305 S.C. 532, 533 , 409 S.E.2d 443, 444 (Ct.App.1991) (quoting the commissioner’s finding that “[a] claimant must prosecute his claim in a timely fashion or it may be barred by the doctrine of laches,” although the commissioner’s authority to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute was not disputed on appeal).

2004See Muir, 336 S.C. at 296-97 , 519 S.E.2d at 598-99 (affirming the *613 commissioner’s finding that the claim was not barred by the doctrine of laches because claimant did not act unreasonably in pursuing the claim); McMillan v. Midlands Human Res., 305 S.C. 532, 533 , 409 S.E.2d 443, 444 (Ct.App.1991) (quoting the commissioner’s finding that “[a] claimant must prosecute his claim in a timely fashion or it may be barred by the doctrine of laches,” although the commissioner’s authority to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute was not disputed on appeal).

2024See id. ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party[] knowing his rights does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights.").

2018See Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n v. Murray, 419 S.C. 605, 619 , 799 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2017), reh'g denied (May 26, 2017), cert. denied (Mar. 7, 2018) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights." (quoting Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 215 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 602 (Ct. App. 2004); id. ("The party seeking to establish laches must show

2013Council for Lee Cnty., 315 S.C. 418, 421 , 434 S.E.2d 279, 280 (1993) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights, does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights."); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195, 198 , 371 S.E.2d 525 , 527 (1988) (defining laches as "neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances affording opportunity for diligence, to do what in law should

2013Council for Lee Cnty., 315 S.C. 418, 421 , 434 S.E.2d 279, 280 (1993) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights, does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights."); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195, 198 , 371 S.E.2d 525 , 527 (1988) (defining laches as "neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances affording opportunity for diligence, to do what in law should

2018Richey v. Dickinson, 359 S.C. 609, 612 , 598 S.E.2d 307, 309 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party who knows his rights does not timely assert them, and by his delay, causes another party to incur expenses or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity steps in and refuses to enforce those rights." (emphasis added)); cf. Jones, 384 S.C. at 19–20, 681 S.E.2d at 16 (finding adverse possessors were prejudiced by a seventeen-year delay when they built improvements on the property in good faith without any knowledge of the landowner's rights).

2018Richey v. Dickinson, 359 S.C. 609, 612 , 598 S.E.2d 307, 309 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party who knows his rights does not timely assert them, and by his delay, causes another party to incur expenses or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity steps in and refuses to enforce those rights." (emphasis added)); cf. Jones, 384 S.C. at 19–20, 681 S.E.2d at 16 (finding adverse possessors were prejudiced by a seventeen-year delay when they built improvements on the property in good faith without any knowledge of the landowner's rights).

2018Richey v. Dickinson, 359 S.C. 609, 612 , 598 S.E.2d 307, 309 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party who knows his rights does not timely assert them, and by his delay, causes another party to incur expenses or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity steps in and refuses to enforce those rights." (emphasis added)); cf. Jones, 384 S.C. at 19–20, 681 S.E.2d at 16 (finding adverse possessors were prejudiced by a seventeen-year delay when they built improvements on the property in good faith without any knowledge of the landowner's rights).

2018Richey v. Dickinson, 359 S.C. 609, 612 , 598 S.E.2d 307, 309 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party who knows his rights does not timely assert them, and by his delay, causes another party to incur expenses or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity steps in and refuses to enforce those rights." (emphasis added)); cf. Jones, 384 S.C. at 19–20, 681 S.E.2d at 16 (finding adverse possessors were prejudiced by a seventeen-year delay when they built improvements on the property in good faith without any knowledge of the landowner's rights).

2018King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 28 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 41 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights, does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights."); id. (explaining for a party to establish the defense of laches, it must show "(1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice"); id. (noting the type of prejudice required to assert the defense of lac

2018King v. James, 388 S.C. 16, 28 , 694 S.E.2d 35, 41 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights, does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights."); id. (explaining for a party to establish the defense of laches, it must show "(1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice"); id. (noting the type of prejudice required to assert the defense of lac

2004Co. v. Driver, 317 S.C. 471, 478 , 451 S.E.2d 924, 929 (Ct. App. 1994). “Delay alone in the assertion of a right does not constitute laches.” Id. “[L]aches arises upon the failure to assert a known right under circumstances indicating that the lached party has abandoned or surrendered the right.” Id. , at 479, 451 S.E.2d at 929 . “The lached party must have had actual knowledge or inquiry notice of the facts forming the basis of its claim, and its failure to assert its right is irrelevant until there is a reason or situation that demands assertion.” Id.

2004Co. v. Driver, 317 S.C. 471, 478 , 451 S.E.2d 924, 929 (Ct. App. 1994). “Delay alone in the assertion of a right does not constitute laches.” Id. “[L]aches arises upon the failure to assert a known right under circumstances indicating that the lached party has abandoned or surrendered the right.” Id. , at 479, 451 S.E.2d at 929 . “The lached party must have had actual knowledge or inquiry notice of the facts forming the basis of its claim, and its failure to assert its right is irrelevant until there is a reason or situation that demands assertion.” Id.

2025See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.").

2025See Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76 , 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.").

2023Moreover, "the doctrine of laches [is] applicable in determining whether an action is time-barred even if extrinsic fraud is established." Robinson v. Est. of Harris, 389 S.C. 360, 371 , 698 S.E.2d 801, 807 (2010).

2023Moreover, "the doctrine of laches [is] applicable in determining whether an action is time-barred even if extrinsic fraud is established." Robinson v. Est. of Harris, 389 S.C. 360, 371 , 698 S.E.2d 801, 807 (2010).

2023See McDaniel, 324 S.C. at 644 , 478 S.E.2d at 871 ("Whether or not [a party] made his Rule 60 motion within a reasonable time is a matter addressed to the trial judge's sound discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb that determination absent abuse of discretion."); Emery, 361 S.C. at 216 , 603 S.E.2d at 602 ("[T]he determination of whether laches has been established is largely within the discretion of the trial court.").

2023See McDaniel, 324 S.C. at 644 , 478 S.E.2d at 871 ("Whether or not [a party] made his Rule 60 motion within a reasonable time is a matter addressed to the trial judge's sound discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb that determination absent abuse of discretion."); Emery, 361 S.C. at 216 , 603 S.E.2d at 602 ("[T]he determination of whether laches has been established is largely within the discretion of the trial court.").

2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion . . . ."); McManus v. Bank of Greenwood, 171 S.C. 84, 89 , 171 S.E. 473, 475 (1933) ("This court has repeatedly held that statements of fact appearing only in argument of counsel will not be considered."); Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 68 , 403 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Arguments of counsel are . . . not evidence.").

2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion . . . ."); McManus v. Bank of Greenwood, 171 S.C. 84, 89 , 171 S.E. 473, 475 (1933) ("This court has repeatedly held that statements of fact appearing only in argument of counsel will not be considered."); Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 68 , 403 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Arguments of counsel are . . . not evidence.").

2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion . . . ."); McManus v. Bank of Greenwood, 171 S.C. 84, 89 , 171 S.E. 473, 475 (1933) ("This court has repeatedly held that statements of fact appearing only in argument of counsel will not be considered."); Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 68 , 403 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Arguments of counsel are . . . not evidence.").

2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion . . . ."); McManus v. Bank of Greenwood, 171 S.C. 84, 89 , 171 S.E. 473, 475 (1933) ("This court has repeatedly held that statements of fact appearing only in argument of counsel will not be considered."); Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 68 , 403 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Arguments of counsel are . . . not evidence.").

2019See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 596, 813 S.E.2d 486, 487 (2018) ("[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo, rather than an abuse of discretion . . . ."); McManus v. Bank of Greenwood, 171 S.C. 84, 89 , 171 S.E. 473, 475 (1933) ("This court has repeatedly held that statements of fact appearing only in argument of counsel will not be considered."); Bowers v. Bowers, 304 S.C. 65, 68 , 403 S.E.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1991) ("Arguments of counsel are . . . not evidence.").

2018See Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n v. Murray, 419 S.C. 605, 619 , 799 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2017), reh'g denied (May 26, 2017), cert. denied (Mar. 7, 2018) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights." (quoting Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 215 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 602 (Ct. App. 2004); id. ("The party seeking to establish laches must show

2018See Belle Hall Plantation Homeowner's Ass'n v. Murray, 419 S.C. 605, 619 , 799 S.E.2d 310, 317 (Ct. App. 2017), reh'g denied (May 26, 2017), cert. denied (Mar. 7, 2018) ("Under the doctrine of laches, if a party, knowing his rights does not seasonably assert them, but by unreasonable delay causes his adversary to incur expenses or enter into obligations or otherwise detrimentally change his position, then equity will ordinarily refuse to enforce those rights." (quoting Emery v. Smith, 361 S.C. 207, 215 , 603 S.E.2d 598, 602 (Ct. App. 2004); id. ("The party seeking to establish laches must show

2018See Brown v. Butler, 347 S.C. 259, 265 , 554 S.E.2d 431, 434 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The determination of whether laches has been established is largely within the discretion of the trial court.").

2018See Brown v. Butler, 347 S.C. 259, 265 , 554 S.E.2d 431, 434 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The determination of whether laches has been established is largely within the discretion of the trial court.").

2018Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 297 , 519 S.E.2d 583, 599 (Ct. App. 1999) ("The failure to assert a right does not come into existence until there is a reason or situation that demands assertion."); Fanning v. Bogacki, 111 S.C 376, 381, 98 S.E. 137, 138 (1919) (recognizing the defense of laches could bar a claim for specific performance of a contract).

2017See In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 260 , 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he circuit court should apply the same standard of review when it considers an appeal from the probate court as an appellate court would apply on appeal."); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) ("When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); id. ("Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matte

2017See In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 260 , 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he circuit court should apply the same standard of review when it considers an appeal from the probate court as an appellate court would apply on appeal."); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) ("When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); id. ("Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matte

2017See In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 260 , 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he circuit court should apply the same standard of review when it considers an appeal from the probate court as an appellate court would apply on appeal."); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) ("When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); id. ("Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matte

2017See In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 260 , 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he circuit court should apply the same standard of review when it considers an appeal from the probate court as an appellate court would apply on appeal."); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) ("When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); id. ("Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matte

2017See In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 260 , 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he circuit court should apply the same standard of review when it considers an appeal from the probate court as an appellate court would apply on appeal."); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) ("When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); id. ("Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matte

2017See In re Estate of Weeks, 329 S.C. 251, 260 , 495 S.E.2d 454, 459 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he circuit court should apply the same standard of review when it considers an appeal from the probate court as an appellate court would apply on appeal."); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493 , 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002) ("When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, the appellate court applies the same standard applied by the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c), SCRCP."); id. ("Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact such that the moving party must prevail as a matte

2017Council for Lee Cty., 315 S.C. 418, 421 , 434 S.E.2d 279, 280 (1993))); Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 674-75 , 582 S.E.2d 432, 446 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Elements of equitable estoppel as to the party estopped are: (1) conduct by the party estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct shall be acted upon by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the true facts.

2017Council for Lee Cty., 315 S.C. 418, 421 , 434 S.E.2d 279, 280 (1993))); Regions Bank v. Schmauch, 354 S.C. 648, 674-75 , 582 S.E.2d 432, 446 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Elements of equitable estoppel as to the party estopped are: (1) conduct by the party estopped which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) the intention that such conduct shall be acted upon by the other party; and (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the true facts.

2014The party seeking to establish laches must show: (1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice." (citation omitted)); id. ("When a Master declines to make a finding of laches, that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C., 358 S.C. 209, 236 , 595 S.E.2d 253, 268 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating that a stale demand is "'one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it

2014The party seeking to establish laches must show: (1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice." (citation omitted)); id. ("When a Master declines to make a finding of laches, that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C., 358 S.C. 209, 236 , 595 S.E.2d 253, 268 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating that a stale demand is "'one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it

2014The party seeking to establish laches must show: (1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice." (citation omitted)); id. ("When a Master declines to make a finding of laches, that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C., 358 S.C. 209, 236 , 595 S.E.2d 253, 268 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating that a stale demand is "'one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it

2014The party seeking to establish laches must show: (1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice." (citation omitted)); id. ("When a Master declines to make a finding of laches, that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C., 358 S.C. 209, 236 , 595 S.E.2d 253, 268 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating that a stale demand is "'one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it

2014The party seeking to establish laches must show: (1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice." (citation omitted)); id. ("When a Master declines to make a finding of laches, that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C., 358 S.C. 209, 236 , 595 S.E.2d 253, 268 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating that a stale demand is "'one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it

2014The party seeking to establish laches must show: (1) a delay, (2) that was unreasonable under the circumstances, and (3) prejudice." (citation omitted)); id. ("When a Master declines to make a finding of laches, that decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion."); All Saints Parish, Waccamaw v. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C., 358 S.C. 209, 236 , 595 S.E.2d 253, 268 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating that a stale demand is "'one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it

2013As to Wilson's assertions the special referee erred in holding he failed to notify Butler of his intent not to renew the lease and the doctrine of laches bars Butler's claim: Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 591 , 658 S.E.2d 539, 542 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court by examining the entire contract and not merely whether certain phrases taken in isolation could be interpreted in more than one way, and stating "[o]ne may not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambi

2013As to Wilson's assertions the special referee erred in holding he failed to notify Butler of his intent not to renew the lease and the doctrine of laches bars Butler's claim: Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585, 591 , 658 S.E.2d 539, 542 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court by examining the entire contract and not merely whether certain phrases taken in isolation could be interpreted in more than one way, and stating "[o]ne may not, by pointing out a single sentence or clause, create an ambi