a n d e r s o n c o u n t y , j e r r y v i c k e r y , i ... · title: 16319878262 author: nicole...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ANDERSON DIVISION BEESON DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and J AND E HOLDINGS LLC, South Carolina Limited Liability Companies, and JOSEPH C BEESON individually Plaintiff, vs. ANDERSON COUNTY, a Political Subdivision of the State of South Carolina, ED DUTTON, in his Official Capacity as a Planning Commissioner for District #1 of Anderson County, LONNIE MURRAY, in his Official Capacity as Planning Commissioner for District #2 of Anderson County, BRAD BURDETTE, in his Official Capacity as Planning Commissioner for District #3 of Anderson County, JERRY VICKERY, in his Official Capacity as Planning Commissioner for District #4 of Anderson County, DAVID COTHRAN, in his Official Capacity as Planning Commissioner for District #5 of Anderson County and Planning Commission Chairman for Anderson County, JANE JONES, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Planning Commissioner for District #6 of Anderson County and Planning Commission Vice-Chair for Anderson County, DEBBIE CHAPMAN, in her Official Capacity as Planning Commissioner for District #7 of Anderson County, RUSTY BURNS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as County Administrator for Anderson County, TIM CARTEE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Subdivision Coordinator for Anderson County LEON HARMON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as County Attorney for Anderson County, TIMOTHY HAYNES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Wastewater Department Engineer for Anderson County, HOLT

Case Number: COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND DAMAGES

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

8:18-cv-01318-HMH Date Filed 05/14/18 Entry Number 1 of 28

2

HOPKINS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Administrator for Anderson County, ALESIA HUNTER, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Development Standards Manager for Anderson County, BILL RUTLEDGE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Roads and Bridges Assistant Principal Engineer for Anderson County, DERRICK SINGLETON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Wastewater Manager for Anderson County, THULASI VINAYAGAM, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Principal Engineer for Anderson County, KENNETH WATERS, Individually and in his Official Capacity as County Councilman for District # 6 of Anderson County, MICHAEL FORMAN, in his Official Capacity as Planning Manager for Anderson County, AND SUSAN HARMON, LORI JONES RAAD, FREDDIE ZINK, THOMAS ANDERSON, STEVE COOPER, ERNEST EVANS and DYKE SPENCER, all in their Individual Capacities, Defendants. Plaintiff, BEESON DEVELOPMENT, LLC and J AND E HOLDINGS, LLC, South

Carolina Limited Liability Companies and JOSEPH C BEESON, personally, by and through

their undersigned attorneys, make the following claims against the Defendants above-named, and

allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a cause of action arising under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the Constitution of the United States as well as causes of action arising under the laws of the

State of South Carolina.


3

2. This complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or caused to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit inequity or other proper proceeding for redress...

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this federal civil rights case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

4. This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and

attorney’s fees.

5. Pursuit and exhaustion of administrative remedies are not a prerequisite to an

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

6. Plaintiffs, BEESON DEVELOPMENT, LLC and J AND E HOLDINGS, LLC,

(“Beeson”) are South Carolina Limited Liability Companies with their principle place of

business in Anderson County, South Carolina.

7. Plaintiff, JOSEPH C BEESON (“JCB”) is a citizen and resident of Anderson

County, South Carolina.

8. Defendant, ANDERSON COUNTY, (the “County”), is a political subdivision of

the State of South Carolina, duly organized and operating pursuant to the Constitution and Laws

of the State of South Carolina, and is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

9. The Anderson County Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) is a

political subdivision of the County that meets regularly in Anderson County, South Carolina.


4

10. Defendant ED DUTTON (“Dutton”) is named in his official capacity as planning

commissioner for District #1 of Anderson County. Upon information and belief, ED DUTTON

is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

11. Defendant LONNIE MURRAY (“Murray”) is named in his official capacity as

planning commissioner for District #2 of Anderson County. Upon information and belief,

LONNIE MURRAY is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

12. Defendant BRAD BURDETTE (“Burdette”) is named in his official capacity as


BRAD BURDETTE is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

13. Defendant JERRY VICKERY (“Vickery”) is named in his official capacity as


JERRY VICKERY is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

14. Defendant DAVID COTHRAN (“Cothran”) is named in his official capacity as

planning commissioner for District #5 of Anderson County and Planning Commission Chairman

for Anderson County. Upon information and belief, DAVID COTHRAN is a resident of

Anderson County, South Carolina.

15. Defendant JANE JONES (“Jones”) is named in her official capacity as planning

commissioner for District #6 of Anderson County and Planning Commission Vice-Chair for

Anderson County. Jones is also named as an individual. Upon information and belief, JANE

JONES is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

16. Defendant DEBBIE CHAPMAN (“Chapman”) is named in her official capacity

as planning commissioner for District #7 of Anderson County. Upon information and belief,

DEBBIE CHAPMAN is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.


5

17. Defendant RUSTY BURNS (“Burns”) is named in his official capacity as County

Administrator for Anderson County. Burns is also named as an individual. Upon information

and belief, RUSTY BURNS is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

18. Defendant TIM CARTEE (“Cartee”) is named in his official capacity as

Subdivision Coordinator for Anderson County. Cartee is also named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, TIM CARTEE is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

19. Defendant LEON HARMON (“Leon Harmon”) is named in his official capacity

as attorney for Anderson County. Leon Harmon is also named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, LEON HARMON is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

20. Defendant TIM HAYNES (“Haynes”) is named in his official capacity as

Wastewater Department Engineer for Anderson County. Haynes is also named as an individual.

Upon information and belief, TIM HAYNES is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

21. Defendant HOLT HOPKINS (“Hopkins”) is named in his official capacity as

Deputy Administrator for Anderson County. Hopkins is also named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, HOLT HOPKINS is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

22. Defendant ALESIA HUNTER (“Hunter”) is named in her official capacity as

Development Standards Manager for Anderson County. Hunter is also named as an individual.

Upon information and belief, ALESIA HUNTER is a resident of Anderson County, South

Carolina.

23. Defendant BILL RUTLEDGE (“Rutledge”) is named in his official capacity as

Roads and Bridges Assistant Principal Engineer for Anderson County. Rutledge is also named

as an individual. Upon information and belief, BILL RUTLEDGE is a resident of Anderson



6

24. Defendant DERRICK SINGLETON (“Singleton”) is named in his official

capacity as Wastewater Manager for Anderson County. Singleton is also named as an

individual. Upon information and belief, DERRICK SINGLETON is a resident of Anderson


25. Defendant THULASI VINAYAGAM (“Vinayagam”) is named in her official

capacity as Roads and Bridges Principal Engineer for Anderson County. Vinayagam is also

named as an individual. Upon information and belief, THULASI VINAYAGAM is a resident of

Anderson County, South Carolina.

26. Defendant KENNETH WATERS (“Waters”) is named in his official capacity as a

member of the Anderson County Counsel. Waters is also named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, KENNETH WATERS is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

27. Defendant MICHAEL FORMAN (“Forman”) is named, in his official capacity as

Planning Manager for Anderson County. Upon information and belief, MICHAEL FORMAN is

a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

28. Defendant SUSAN HARMON (“Susan Harmon”) is named as an individual.

Upon information and belief, SUSAN HARMON is a resident of Anderson County, South

Carolina.

29. Defendant LORI JONES RAAD (“Raad”) is named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, LORI JONES RAAD is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

30. Defendant FREDDIE ZINK (“Zink”) is named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, FREDDIE ZINK is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

31. Defendant THOMAS ANDERSON (“Anderson”) is named as an individual.

Upon information and belief, THOMAS ANDERSON is a resident of Anderson County, South


7

Carolina.

32. Defendant STEVE COOPER (“Cooper”) is named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, STEVE COOPER is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

33. Defendant ERNEST EVANS (“Evans”) is named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, ERNEST EVANS is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

34. Defendant DYKE SPENCER (“Spencer”) is named as an individual. Upon

information and belief, DYKE SPENCER is a resident of Anderson County, South Carolina.

35. All events complained of herein occurred in Anderson County, South Carolina,

which is within the geographic jurisdiction of the Anderson Division of the United States District

Court for the District of South Carolina.

36. Accordingly, venue lies in the Anderson Division of the United States District

Court for the District of South Carolina.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

37. Beeson is a residential and commercial developer. It owns several tracts of land

in Anderson County it intends to develop when Beeson’s subdivision plans are approved by the

appropriate authorities.

38. JCB is the sole owner of BEESON DEVELOPMENT, LLC and J AND E

HOLDINGS, LLC.

39. Beeson has entered into land purchase contracts with certain individuals in

Anderson County to purchase and develop their property when Beeson’s subdivision plans are

approved by the appropriate authorities.


8

Chimney Hill

40. On May 11, 2017, Beeson submitted a subdivision application, traffic impact

study (studying both Chimney Hill Townhomes and Vantage Apartments at the directive of the

South Carolina Department of Transportation (“SCDOT”) and the Anderson County Roads and

Bridges Department (“Roads and Bridges”) and preliminary plat to the County for approval for a

proposed subdivision called Chimney Hill Townhomes (“Chimney Hill”).

41. For Chimney Hill, Beeson had previously entered into land purchase contracts

with at least three property owners.

42. Beeson’s application for Chimney Hill completely followed the Anderson County

Code and rules. The application was perfected, complete, accurate, and in order.

43. Based on the Anderson County Code (“ACC”) and rules, Beeson’s application for

Chimney Hill should have been approved by the Planning Commission.

44. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s request for a variance for Chimney Hill

should have been approved by the Planning Commission.

45. For Chimney Hill, Beeson to date has purchased and/or entered into land purchase

contracts with at least five property owners. Anderson County was aware of the ongoing process

to obtain/purchase these properties with the intent to develop these properties and abandon a

portion of Barr Circle. Beeson had continuous and specific communications with the Anderson

County Roads and Bridges Department, Anderson County Wastewater Department as well as

other departments regarding the development.

46. Beeson’s subdivision application and preliminary plat for Chimney Hill followed

the adopted Anderson County Code and rules. Beeson’s variance application for Chimney Hill


9

followed adopted Anderson County Code and rules for a variance application and the specific

direction of Hunter.

47. On June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission denied approval of Chimney Hill.

The Planning Commission’s denial did not identify any violations of the Anderson County Code

or rules.

48. On July 13, 2017, Beeson resubmitted a second subdivision application, variance

application and preliminary plat for Chimney Hill that was identical to the first application.

49. Based on the Anderson County Code (“ACC”) and rules, Beeson’s application for

Chimney Hill should have been approved by the Planning Commission.

50. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s request for a variance for Chimney Hill


51. At the Planning Commission meeting on August 8, 2017, the Planning

Commission tabled Chimney Hill.

52. On September 12, 2017, the Planning Commission denied approval of Chimney

Hill. The Planning Commission’s denial did not identify any violations of the ACC or rules.

53. The Planning Commission’s reason for denying Chimney Hill was to prevent

development in general and to prevent development by Beeson specifically.

54. Due to the Planning Commission’s actions, some of Beeson’s land purchase

contracts expired and had to be renegotiated for Chimney Hill. Beeson now owns properties that

it is not being allowed to develop.


10

Yorkshire Farms

55. On June 8, 2017, Beeson submitted an application, preliminary plat, and request

for variance to Anderson County for approval for a proposed subdivision called Yorkshire Farms

(“Yorkshire Farms”).

56. For Yorkshire Farms, Beeson had previously entered into land purchase contracts

with three property owners.

57. Beeson’s application for Yorkshire Farms completely followed the ACC and

rules. The application was perfected, complete, accurate, and in order.

58. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s application for Yorkshire Farms should

have been approved by the Planning Commission.

59. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s request for a variance for Yorkshire Farms

was at the specific direction of Hunter and should have been approved by the Planning

Commission.

60. Hunter sent correspondence to Beeson indicating that the Anderson County

Development Standards office misplaced Beeson’s subdivision application, request for variance

and preliminary plat so Yorkshire Farms was not heard at the July 11, 2017 Planning

Commission meeting. Rutledge, in the Roads and Bridges department, indicated that for some

reason he could not find his files for the Yorkshire Farms project.

61. On July 10, 2017, Hunter requested that the Planning Commission hold a ‘Special

Called Meeting’ on July 25, 2017 to hear Yorkshire Farms.

62. On July 13, 2017, The Planning Commission denied the request to hear Yorkshire

Farms on July 25, 2017.


11

63. While Yorkshire Farms was pending before the Planning Commission, Jones

and/or agents working on her behalf approached neighbors of one of the property owners with

whom Beeson held a land purchase contract. Jones and her agents incited the neighbors to a

point where they harassed and bullied the property owner until the property owner requested a

release from the land purchase contract.

64. Prior to Yorkshire Farms being heard by the Planning Commission, Anderson

made physical threats to Beeson.

65. On August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission denied approval of Yorkshire

Farms. The Planning Commission’s denial did not identify any violations of the ACC or rules.

66. The Planning Commission’s reason for denying Yorkshire Farms was to prevent


67. Due to the Planning Commission’s actions and the actions of Jones and Hunter,

Beeson’s land purchase contracts for Yorkshire Farms with the three property owners expired.

Attenborough

68. On October 12, 2017, Beeson submitted an application to the County for approval

for a proposed subdivision called Attenborough Townhomes (“Attenborough”) and submitted a

request for variance.

69. For Attenborough, Beeson had previously entered into a land purchase contract

with a property owner.

70. Beeson’s application for Attenborough completely followed the ACC and rules.

The application was perfected, complete, accurate, and in order.

71. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s application for Attenborough should have

been approved by the Planning Commission.


12

72. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s request for a variance for Attenborough


73. On November 14, 2017, the Planning Commission denied approval of the

variance requested for Attenborough. The Planning Commission’s denial did not identify any

violations of the ACC or rules.

74. The Planning Commission’s reason for denying the variance was to prevent


75. Due to the Planning Commission’s actions Beeson’s land purchase contract for

Attenborough had to be renegotiated.

76. Johnson contacted at least one land owner knowing Beeson had the property

under contract. Johnson conveyed fabricated information to Jones regarding his projects.

Kingslake


for a proposed subdivision called Kingslake.

78. On October 30, 2017, Beeson submitted a preliminary plat to the County for

Kinglake. The plat was submitted with directives from Burns and Leon Harmon as to how many

lots to submit. At some point Burns asked Beeson to correspond with only Burns and Leon

Harmon.

79. For Kingslake, Beeson had previously entered into a land purchase contract with a

property owner.

80. Beeson’s application for Kingslake completely followed the ACC and rules. The

application was perfected, complete, accurate, and in order.


13

81. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s application for Kingslake should have

been approved by the Planning Commission.

82. At the Planning Commission meeting on November 14, 2017, the Planning

Commission tabled Kingslake.

83. On December 12, 2017, the Planning Commission denied approval of Kingslake.

Kingslake. The Planning Commission’s reason for denial did not identify any valid violations of

the ACC or rules.

84. The Planning Commission’s reason for denying Kingslake was to prevent


85. Due to the Planning Commission’s actions, it was not possible for Beeson to

proceed with development of Kingslake prior to the land purchase contract expiring.

Cheshire


for a proposed subdivision called Cheshire.

87. On October 30, 2017, Beeson submitted a preliminary plat to the County for

Cheshire. The plat was submitted with directives from Burns and Leon Harmon as to how many

lots to submit. At some point Burns asked Beeson to correspond with only Burns and Leon

Harmon.

88. For Cheshire, Beeson had previously entered into a land purchase contract with a

property owner.

89. Beeson’s application for Cheshire completely followed the ACC and rules. The

application was perfected, complete, accurate, and in order.


14

90. Based on the ACC and rules, Beeson’s application for Cheshire should have been

approved by the Planning Commission.

91. At the Planning Commission meeting on November 14, 2017, the Planning

Commission tabled Cheshire.

92. On December 12, 2017, the Planning Commission denied approval of Cheshire.

The Planning Commission’s reason for denial did not identify any valid violations of the ACC or

rules.

93. The Planning Commission’s reason for denying Cheshire was to prevent


94. Due to the Planning Commission’s actions, it was not possible for Beeson to

proceed with development of Cheshire prior to the land purchase contract expiring.

Encroachment Permit

95. ACC Section 38-74(c)(1) states:

The board of appeals shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the land-use or development standards provisions of the Anderson County Code of Ordinances. 96. ACC Section 38-74(e) states: “Appeals to the [board of appeals] may be taken by

any person aggrieved . . . .”

97. VANTAGE OF POWDERSVILLE, LLC, (“Vantage”) a South Carolina Limited

Liability Company, is an apartment developer.

98. On December 18, 2017, at the directive of Hopkins, Rutledge decided to approve

an encroachment permit application submitted by the manager of Vantage requesting two

accesses onto Robbins Drive. Hopkins stated the primary reason was due to the Planning


15

Commission approving Vantage’s preliminary plan which included a version of one of these

requested accesses.

99. Rutledge and Hopkins’ decision violates the ACC because it allows access to a

Large Scale Project from a minor local road.

100. Rutledge’s decision was made after indicating that the project should have been

required to do a traffic study, that the Planning Commission did not understand the Ordinance,

that he didn’t know what to do, that Hunter normally sends him information, that he was afraid

they were pulling something he was really not expecting, that he needed to get with Hopkins to

know what to do, that Roads and Bridges had told Vantage’s engineer that they could not give

them a permit, that they were avoiding a traffic study, that they could not access a minor local

road and that if permitted to do so he did not know how they could limit it to a regular entrance.

101. Beeson owns property on a road adjacent to the minor local road and is aggrieved

by the official’s decision.

102. On January 11, 2018, Beeson filed an Application of Appeals challenging the

official’s decision.

103. On January 30, 2018, the County informed Beeson that it was refusing to

schedule a hearing of Beeson’s appeal.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO ANDERSON COUNTY (Injunctive Relief)

104. Beeson reasserts the foregoing allegations to the extent consistent with this cause

of action.

105. This is an action for injunctive relief.

106. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state from depriving “any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


16

107. The County has violated the ACC by approving the encroachment permits

requested by Vantage. Hopkins informed Beeson that he had no choice in approving the permit

due to pressure from the Planning Commission. Hopkins indicated to Beeson that the planning

commission "screwed up" by denying Beeson's project.

108. The County has further violated the ACC by denying Beeson the right to appeal.

109. By violating the ACC and denying Beeson the right to appeal the official’s

decision, the County has deprived Beeson of property without due process of law.

110. Further, the County has removed Beeson’s statutory right to utilize the

administrative process and appeal from same if necessary.

111. If the encroachment permits are allowed to remain in force, then Beeson will

suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

112. Further, the county has denied Beeson information regarding a sanitary sewer lift

station that has been permitted and that is according to the County to be owned and operated by

the County. The County is denying Beeson the right to design Beeson’s proposed project and

incorporate connection to the lift station. The County informed Beeson on multiple occasions

that the infrastructure as it relates to sewer capacity is in place to support Beeson's development.

113. Based on the foregoing, Beeson is entitled to injunctive relief enjoining the

County from allowing the encroachment permits to remain in force enabling Vantage to illegally

access the minor road local road near Beeson's property.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO JANE JONES, KENNETH WATERS, ALESIA HUNTER, AND LEON HARMON

(Injunctive Relief)


of action.


17

115. Defendants Jones, Hunter, Waters and Leon Harmon have each disclosed non-

public information that they gained from their positions in the County government to members of

the public.

116. The information disclosed by these Defendants is often incorrect but cannot be

refuted by Beeson because it is not disclosed in a public forum.

117. The information disclosed is defamatory to Beeson and/or improperly used to

detrimentally affect Beeson's reputation in the community.

118. If these Defendants are allowed to continue to release non-public information for

the purpose of harming Beeson, then Beeson will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be

adequately compensated by monetary damages.

119. Based on the foregoing, Beeson is entitled to injunctive relief in enjoining these

Defendants from releasing non-public information regarding Beeson or its projects to the public.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION -- AS TO ANDERSON COUNTY (Claim for Damages from Constitutional Deprivations)


of action.

121. Beeson has a protected property interest in having the ability to obtain public

information regarding a lift station to be owned and operated by Anderson County.

122. Beeson has a protected property interest in having the ability to develop its

property and this ability has been hindered by the County’s decision to allow a Large Scale

Project access from the minor local road sharing a means of ingress and egress with Beeson’s

property.

123. Even if the County is enjoined from allowing access via the Encroachment

Permits, the development of Beeson’s property has been wrongfully delayed both by the


18

official’s decision to allow encroachment and by the County’s violation of Beeson’s due process

rights in not allowing it to appeal said decision.

124. Beeson also has a protected property interest in having its projects that are

properly submitted pursuant to the ACC and rules approved by the Planning Commission.

125. The Planning Commission’s intervention and denial of Beeson’s applications and

requests for variances was motivated by a lack of impartiality towards Beeson and was such a

departure from established practice and applicable law that Beeson was denied due process.

Jones has indicated that she would not approve any of Beeson's projects.

126. Beeson has suffered monetary damages as a result of the County’s violation of

Beeson’s constitutional right to due process.

127. Beeson has been damaged by the County’s violation of its constitutional rights in

excess of $16,500,000 exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

128. Beeson has suffered consequential damages in excess of $4,000,000 due to the

Count’s violation of its constitutional rights.

129. This is an action to enforce rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution of

the United States. As such, Beeson is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO ANDERSON COUNTY (Interference with Contractual Relationships)


of action.

131. Beeson had land purchase contracts with several property owners where Beeson

planned to develop the owners’ properties for building residential housing.


19

132. Beeson had agreements or prospective agreements with home builders to build

homes on properties Beeson planned to develop.

133. The County and Planning Commission knew or should have known that Beeson

had agreements or prospective agreements with property owners where Beeson planned to

develop.

134. The County knew that Beeson had agreements or prospective agreements with

home builders to build homes on properties Beeson planned to develop.

135. The County knew and acknowledged that time was of the essence in Beeson’s

agreements with property owners and home builders to the point that Burns conveyed to Beeson

that Beeson had been very patient.

136. Burns knew that Beeson was being forced into a lawsuit, conveyed to Beeson

more than once that he knew the consequences of the County’s actions, and invited Beeson to

sue to the County.

137. The County intended to force the end of these agreements with property owners

and home builders by intentionally delaying the approval process for Beeson’s developments.

138. The County’s stated justification for interfering with Beeson’s agreements was to

slow down development in the area and stop Beeson, in particular, from developing any

properties. As such, the County lacked adequate justification for forcing the end of the above-

referenced agreements.

139. Beeson has suffered damages in excess of $16,500,000 and continues to suffer

damages due to the County’s intentional interference with Beeson’s contractual relationships.


20

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO JANE JONES , KENNETH WATERS, STEVE COOPER, EARNEST EVANS, AND THOMAS ANDERSON

(Interference with Contractual Relationship)


of action.

141. Jones, Waters, Cooper, Evans, and Anderson knew or should have known that

Beeson had agreements with property owners where Beeson planned to develop.

142. These Defendants knew or should have known that Beeson had agreements or

prospective agreements with home builders to build homes on properties Beeson planned to

develop.

143. These Defendants knew that time was of the essence in Beeson’s agreements with

property owners and home builders.

144. These Defendants intended to force the end of these agreements with property

owners and home builders by intentionally delaying or interfering with the approval process for

Beeson’s developments.

145. In addition to their actions in their official capacity, Jones and Waters, with

assistance from Cooper, took the following actions with the intention to interfere with Beeson’s

agreements: (1) Disseminated false information to property owners with whom Beeson had

agreements; (2) disseminated false information to the general public about Beeson and the scope

of its projects; (3) coerced property owners with whom Beeson had agreements; and (4) coerced

property owners adjacent to Beeson’s developments causing them to harass and intimidate

property owners with whom Beeson had agreements.


21

146. Jones’, Waters’, and Cooper's stated justification for interfering with Beeson’s

agreements was to slow down development in the area and stop Beeson, in particular, from

developing any properties.

147. Evans justification for interfering with Beeson’s agreements was to increase the

value of his own property at Beeson’s expense.

148. Anderson’s justification for interfering with Beeson’s agreements was to stop

development near his residence.

149. As such, these Defendants lacked adequate justification for forcing the end of the

above-referenced agreements.


damages due to these Defendants’ intentional interference with Beeson’s contractual

relationships.

FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO ANDERSON COUNTY (Inverse Condemnation)


of action.

152. The County has taken affirmative action to deny Beeson profitable use of its

property.

153. The County has wrongfully created a pseudo-regulation to specifically target

development by Beeson.

154. The County’s actions have a direct and significant economic impact on Beeson.

155. Beeson has invested significant time and money into acquiring its properties and

developing projects for those properties.


22

156. The County’s actions render Beeson’s property entirely useless for Beeson’s

investment backed expectation of developing the property.

157. The loss in value of Beeson’s properties caused by the County’s pseudo-

regulation is in excess of $16,500,000.

FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO ANDERSON COUNTY (Negligence)


of action.

159. The Planning Commission, acting on behalf of the County, has a duty to

applicants, such as Beeson, to make decisions based on factual information provided to it by the

County administrative staff.

160. The Planning Commission breached this duty by making decisions regarding

Beeson’s applications after: (1) failing to review the factual information provided by the staff;

(2) failing to understand the factual information provided by the staff due to lack of training by

the County; and/or the Development Standard office. (3) ignoring the factual information

provided by the staff.


damages due to the Planning Commission’s negligent actions on behalf the County.

162. The Planning Commission’s negligent actions on behalf of the County have also

caused consequential damages in excess of $4,000,000.

FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – ANDERSON COUNTY (Defamation)

163. The Plaintiffs reassert the foregoing allegations to the extent consistent with this

cause of action.


23

164. The County, acting through its officials, made untrue and defamatory statements

about Beeson and its projects including misrepresenting: (1) the effects of the projects on the

surrounding areas; (2) the effects of the projects on traffic. (3) represented they had a traffic

study for Vantage when they did not.

165. The County, acting through its officials, made untrue and defamatory statements

about JCB.

166. The County’s statements are with malice because the County knew that these

statements were false but intentionally published them anyway to damage Beeson and JCB.

167. The statements are directly related to Beeson’s development projects.

168. The statements are directly related to JCB’s character in his profession.

169. Beeson and JCB have suffered damages in excess of $9,000,000 and continue to

suffer damages due to the County’s defamatory conduct.

FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO JANE JONES, LEON HARMON, ALESIA HUNTER, SUSAN HARMON, STEVE COOPER, ERNEST EVANS,

DYKE SPENCER, AND KENNETH WATERS (Defamation)

170. The Plaintiffs reassert the foregoing allegations to the extent consistent with this

cause of action.

171. Jones and Waters, acting outside their official capacity, made untrue and

defamatory statements about Beeson and its projects including misrepresenting:

a. the effects of the projects on the surrounding areas; and

b. the effects of the projects on traffic.

172. These statements are with malice because they knew that these statements were

false but intentionally published and arranged for them to be exploited illicitly in meetings to

damage Beeson.


24

173. Further, Jones and Waters have admitted that they intentionally made false

statements with the intention of hindering or cancelling Beeson’s projects and damaging Beeson.

174. The statements are directly related to Beeson’s development projects.

175. Cooper, Jones, Evans, Spencer, and Waters made untrue and defamatory

statements about Beeson and its projects misrepresenting the effects of the projects on the

surrounding areas and the effects of the projects on traffic.

176. Leon Harmon and/or Susan Harmon drafted and distributed a letter or letters

making untrue and defamatory statements about JCB, his family, and Beeson.

177. Jones, Waters, Leon Harmon and Hunter, acting outside of their official

capacities, relayed non-public information which they gained from their positions within the

county government, to other individuals to be published, often with incorrect facts, to the public.

178. Beeson and JCB have suffered damages in excess of $9,000,000 and continue to

suffer damages due to these Defendants' defamatory conduct.

FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS (Civil Conspiracy)


of action.

180. The Defendants have conspired to take actions which the Defendants know to be

wrongful.

181. The ultimate goal of the conspiracy was to delay Beeson's development of its

property until such time as the County could pass a zoning referendum which would have

ultimately shut down Beeson's development projects while giving preferential treatment to single

family developments by others.


25

182. In addition to the actions of the Defendants previously stated, the Defendants

have taken overt acts for the purpose of injuring Beeson, including but not limited to:

a. The County, acting through its agents, has wrongfully delayed and denied

Beeson's development projects while granting preferential treatment to other projects.

b. Hunter, at the urging of Jones and Waters, attempted, both in Hunter’s

official capacity but also outside of that capacity, to fabricate reasons to deny Beeson’s

applications, general correspondence, and requests for variances;

c. Jones, Waters, Hopkins, and Hunter, acting outside of their official

capacities, pressured Rutledge and Vinayagam to participate in approving and signing the

encroachment permit for Vantage in violation of the ACC;

d. Evans agreed with Jones to oppose at least one of Beeson's development

projects in exchange for preferential treatment for the sale of Evans’ property leading to

financial benefits to Evans

e. Forman assisted the conspirators by seeking outside advice from other

jurisdictions on how to deny Beeson's projects and by attempting to implement said

advice.

f. Jones and Waters, acting outside of their official capacities,

misrepresented to Beeson that its projects needed approval from a bogus "Traffic

Committee" chaired by Cooper in an attempt to further delay Beeson's projects.

g. Spencer used his employment at Powdersville Water to promote his

personal interest and agenda against Beeson and his projects. Spencer misrepresented to

Beeson that he was opposed to the County’s actions in denying Beeson’s projects while

simultaneously working with the co-conspirators to damage Beeson.


26

h. Cooper represented to Beeson that he was the chairman of a bogus Traffic

Committee and that Beeson needed his approval before Beeson's projects could move

forward;

i. Hopkins, acting outside of his official capacities, cut off the majority of

Beeson's communication with the County's staff in an attempt to prevent Beeson from

receiving information about its resubmitted projects and why its projects were being

delayed and denied;

j. Jones, acting in her official capacity but also acting outside her official

capacity, told Beeson that if he wanted to move forward he needed to get the community

on his side, that it was Beeson’s responsibility to convince the public that his projects

were okay, that the problem was that the public was finding out about Beeson’s projects

and that as a resident Jones would prefer not to have the Vantage or Chimney Hill

project. However, Jones conveyed to the commission that she wanted to approve the

Vantage project. Jones also indicated to Beeson that he had done everything right and the

only thing required for approval was the community’s reaction.

k. Jones, Leon Harmon, Hunter, and Waters acting outside of their official

capacities, relayed non-public information which they gained from their positions within

the county government, to other conspirators to be published, often with incorrect facts,

to the public;

l. Waters and Jones published and/or aided others in publishing non-public

information and incorrect facts to the public in an attempt to further the goal of the

conspiracy.


27

m. Anderson and Zink threatened one of the landowners who had contracted

with Beeson for the development of Yorkshire Farms in a successful attempt to force the

landowner to prematurely end his contract with Beeson;

n. Anderson threatened to shoot Beeson’s contractors if they accessed his

property.

o. Singleton, Hopkins, and Haynes withheld information regarding the

sanitary sewer lift station designed for the use of Vantage to delay Beeson's ability to

design a resubmitted project in an attempt to further the conspiracy;

p. Cooper represented that Beeson must channel his developments through

him and that other proposed developments had to be channeled through him.

q. Dutton, Murray, Burdette, Vickery, Cothran, Jones, and Chapman voted to

deny Beeson’s applications and requests for variance at the urging of Jones and Waters

despite their knowledge that denying Beeson’s applications and requests for variance was

wrongful, without legal justification, and contrary to the common practice of the Planning

Commission.

183. The Defendants took such actions for the purpose of injuring Beeson and to

deprive it of its constitutional rights.


damages due to the Defendants’ actions.

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

A jury trial is demanded for all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Beeson respectfully requests the following relief:


28

1. All available damages recoverable under each of the theories pled;

2. That this Court appropriately set and hold a hearing, and preliminarily enjoin the

County from allowing the Encroachment Permit to remain in force with the

subsequent entry of a permanent injunction requiring the County to deny the

Encroachment Permit;

3. Beeson’s actual, consequential, compensatory, and special damages arising from this

cause of action which total in excess of $42,500,000;

4. Beeson’s costs associated with this action;

5. Beeson’s attorney’s fees for the prosecution of this matter; and

6. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, BANNISTER, WYATT & STALVEY, LLC

s/Luke A. Burke Bruce W. Bannister SC Bar No. 15679; Fed. ID No. 7321 Luke A. Burke SC Bar No. 100033; Fed. ID No. 11322 401 Pettigru Street (29601) P. O. Box 10007 (29603) Greenville, South Carolina Phone: (864) 298-0084 Fax: (864) 298-0146 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Dated: May 14, 2018 Greenville, South Carolina


a n d e r s o n c o u n t y , j e r r y v i c k e r y , i ... · title: 16319878262 author: nicole...

Documents