Pond Place Partners, Inc. v. Poole
567 S.E.2d 881 | Court of Appeals of South Carolina | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A property owner filed a lis pendens (notice of pending lawsuit) to challenge changes to restrictive covenants on a subdivision. When the lawsuit failed, the property developer sued for slander of title. The court ruled that filing a lis pendens is protected from slander claims when there's a real legal dispute over property rights, even if you ultimately lose the case. This protects developers and contractors from being sued just for filing legitimate property disputes.
Key Takeaways
- •Filing a lis pendens to challenge restrictive covenants or property restrictions is legally protected, even if your case loses, as long as the dispute is genuine and involves real property rights
- •Lis pendens protection is qualified, not absolute—meaning you're protected only if the underlying lawsuit involves a real, justiciable controversy about the property
- •Don't assume you'll face slander of title liability for filing property dispute notices; courts recognize these filings as part of the normal legal process when property rights are at stake
Filing of lis pendens is qualifiedly privileged, not absolutely privileged.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get sued for slander of title if I file a lis pendens to challenge property restrictions?
No, filing a lis pendens is legally protected when you have a genuine dispute over property rights. South Carolina courts recognize this as a qualified privilege, meaning you're protected from slander claims even if you lose the underlying case, as long as the dispute involves real property and raises legitimate legal questions.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.