SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter has come before this Court pursuant to a Motion of the State of South Carolina ex rel McMaster¹ to stay or continue this proceeding pending the resolution of the appeal in the related case, Tenney v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, etc. et al, 2007-CP-07-00596 (Tenney I). The instant case (Tenney II) has been continued pursuant to Petitioner’s Request since August 13, 2008. This Court has determined that a stay should be issued until Tenney I is finally determined.

The instant proceeding before the Administrative Law Court seeks review of the Department of Health and Environmental Control’s denial of her application to build a dock on that island. One of the grounds for the denial of the permit was failure to provide sufficient ownership documentation including a chain of title to a sovereign grant.

The Master in Equity ruled in Tenney I that Petitioner has title to Little Jack Rowe Island, and that she satisfied requirements of demonstrating ownership of Little Jack Rowe Island. See, Order of the Honorable Marvin Dukes, January 26, 2009, attached to Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, the Master’s ruling addresses a key issue in the instant proceeding, Tenney II; however, because the State and DHEC have appealed the Master’s decision in Tenney I, Judge Dukes Order is automatically stayed. Rule 225, SCACR. Therefore, Judge Dukes’s Order cannot, at this time, be a basis for any ruling by this Court in Tenney II. Furthermore, if an appellate court reversed his decision in Tenney I, Petitioner may be deprived of ownership of the Island for purposes of her dock application under review in the instant Tenney II case. Although Petitioner Tenney disputes the necessity of producing a grant in order to receive a permit, she acknowledges that, if the Tenney I appeal is determined adversely to her, she may lose any dock that she had constructed on the island. Moreover, if Tenney II were to proceed to a decision prior to resolution of Tenney I, an appeal would be likely to be taken in Tenney II by the losing party to preserve the party’s position. Two appeals would then be pending which would not contribute to judicial economy.

This Court does not decide any of the issues pending in Tenney II, but determines that a stay of this proceeding until a final determination of the appeal in Tenney I would serve judicial economy.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding be stayed until a final determination of the appeal in Tenney v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, etc. et al, 2007-CP-07-00596 (Tenney I).

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.