Davis Adv. Sh. No. 7
S.E. 2d

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

    Michael Slear and

    Elizabeth A. Slear,         Petitioners,

        v.

    Jethro Hanna and

    Watson's Riverside, Inc.,         Defendants,

    of Whom

    Jethro Hanna is         Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF

APPEALS

Appeal From Horry County

John M. Leiter, Special Referee

Opinion No.24763

Heard June 4, 1997 - Filed February 17, 1998

REVERSED

Henrietta U. Golding, of Bellamy, Rutenberg,

Copeland, Epps, Gravely & Bowers, P.A., of Myrtle

Beach, for petitioners.

Charles V. Leonard & Willard D. Hanna, Jr., of

Harris & Hanna, P.A., of Myrtle Beach, for

respondent.

John P. Henry, of the Thompson Law Firm, P.A., of

p. 3

Conway, for Watson's Riverside, Inc.

        FINNEY., C.J.: We granted certiorari to, review the Court of

Appeals' opinion in Slear v. Hanna, 321 S.C. 100, 467 S.E.2d 761 (Ct. App.

1996). We reverse.

        Petitioners brought this action seeking a ruling that they had the

right to use Ester Landing in Watson's Riverside Development as an access

point to the Intracoastal Waterway. Petitioners are property owners in the

development. Respondent, Jethro Hanna, owns property adjacent to the

landing. The special referee found it was the intent of the developer to

dedicate Ester Landing to all property owners in the development and the

private dedication was accepted by the residents of Watson's Riverside

Development. Accordingly, the special referee concluded petitioners had the

right to use Ester Landing. The Court of Appeals reversed. Slear. supra.

        J. Watson Smith purchased two pieces of property in Horry

County which he transferred in 1973 to Watson Riverside Inc. In July 1973,

a plat (Cox Plat) and Declaration of Restrictions were recorded showing

Blocks A-G of Watson's Riverside Development and restrictions on use of the

property. On October 20, 1975, restrictions on the use of Block H, shown on

a previously recorded Plat of "Watson's Riverside Addition," were recorded

and the owners of property in Blocks A-G agreed to have the previously

recorded restrictions changed to conform to the restriction on Block H. On

December 30, 1975, a plat showing an expansion of Block H was recorded

and outside the boundary of Block H was printed "Reserved for Future

Development." On July 10, 1978, a plat depicting Blocks K - O, designated

as Watson's Riverside Addition, Phases III and IV was recorded and on July

7, 1980, restrictions identical to those recorded for Blocks A - H were

recorded. Petitioners' property is located in Block M.

        On January 27, 1976, respondent purchased Lot 1-A of Block B

of Watson's Riverside Development as shown on the Cox Plat. The