ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

State of South Carolina on the relation of

RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner Richardson objects to Respondent Janet Butler’s motion to alter or amend the

Court’s temporary injunction order under Rule 59(e), S.C. Rules of Civil Procedure.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On January 26, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant nuisance action and motion for

temporary injunction. The instant action and motion were brought pursuant to the South

Carolina’s nuisance statutes, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-43-10 through 130.

On March 20, 2024, a hearing was held on Petitioner’s motion for a temporary

injunction. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence Respondent Janet Butler was the

property owner of 1400 Corbett Drive, and that for several years her tenants, Respondents

Worden Butler and Alexis Hartnett, had threatened and harassed their neighbors by, inter alia,

burning a cross next to the yard of their neighbors who are African American and threatening to

harm another neighbor’s children.

On March 28, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for a temporary injunction.

On April 5, 2024, Respondent Janet Butler moved to have the Court alter or amend its

temporary injunction order under Rule 59(e), SCRCP.

1
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
ARGUMENT

The following are Petitioner’s responses to Respondent Janet Butler’s various arguments

to alter or amend the Court’s temporary injunction order.

I. Respondent Janet Butler Asks the Court to Alter the Nuisance Statute Based on
Irrelevant Caselaw.

Respondent Janet Butler argued the Court’s temporary injunction order did not consider

several South Carolina cases. Specifically, Respondent Janet Butler cited: (1) City of Columbia v.

Pic-A-Flick Video, Inc., 340 S.C. 278, 531 S.E.2d 518 (2000) (holding a government entity can

petition the court for an injunction to enforce a zoning ordinance); (2) County of Richland v.

Simpkins, 348 S.C. 664, 560 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2002) (reaffirming Pic-A-Flick); and Roach v.

Combined Utility Comm. of Easley, 290 S.C. 437, 351 S.E.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1986) (setting forth

the elements for obtaining a temporary injunction against an anticipatory nuisance).

These cases are not relevant to the instant case because Petitioner did not seek a

temporary injunction through South Carolina common law and instead sought a temporary

injunction through South Carolina’s nuisance statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-30. None of the

above casees mentioned South Carolina’s nuisance statute.

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-30 is plain and states the judge “shall, upon the presentation of a

petition therefor alleging that the nuisance complained of exists, allow a temporary writ of

injunction, without bond, if the existence of such nuisance shall be made to appear to the

satisfaction of the court or judge.”

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-30 should be interpreted under the “plain meaning rule.” “Under

the plain meaning rule, it is not the court’s place to change the meaning of a clear and

unambiguous statute. Where the statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a

clear and definite meaning, the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
no right to impose another meaning.” Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 84, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581

(2000) (internal citations omitted).

By asking the Court to apply irrelevant caselaw to the nuisance statute, Respondent Janet

Butler is asking the Court to impose requirements and meaning that are not there.

Therefore, the Court should deny Respondent Janet Butler’s motion to amend its

temporary injunction order based on irrelevant caselaw.

II. S.C.’s Nuisance Statute Does Not Require that the Enjoined Property Be Open to the
Public.

Respondent Janet Butler argued the enjoined property must be public property and cited

State v. Turner et al., 198 S.C. 487, 18 S.E.2d 372 (1942).

South Carolina’s nuisance statute does not contain this limitation. A nuisance is “any

building or other place used for…continuous breach of the peace.” S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-

10(A).

While Turner offers guidance on what a nuisance is, it does not limit the scope of S.C.’s

nuisance statute. Indeed, Turner pre-dated the passage of S.C.’s nuisance statute by twenty years.

As stated above, Respondent Janet Butler’s application of improper caselaw would

violate the “plain meaning rule.” This same argument applies here. Therefore, the Court should

deny Respondent Janet Butler’s motion to amend.

III. Petitioner’s Evidence Established a Nuisance.

Respondent Janet Butler argued Petitioner’s evidence did not establish a nuisance

because: (1) Respondents’ conduct was legal; (2) Respondents’ conduct occurred on their

property; and (3) Respondents’ conduct was not continuous.

Petitioner disagrees. Petitioner presented facts that showed since at least 2021,

Respondents Worden Butler and Alexis Hartnett used their house at 1400 Corbett Drive as a

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
center for harassing, assaulting, and threatening their neighbors and people in the areas

surrounding their house. Moreover, ongoing law enforcement attention did not abate the

nuisance activity.

Respondent Janet Butler is simply arguing the facts did not support the temporary

injunction order, and these arguments were presented at the hearing. Because Respondent Janet

Butler’s arguments are not new, the Court should deny her motion.

IV. Traditional Law Enforcement Methods Did Not Deter Respondents.

Respondent Janet Butler argued the criminal charges against Respondents Worden Butler

and Alexis Hartnett were sufficient to deter nuisance behavior.

This was not accurate. At the temporary injunction hearing, Horry County Police Captain

Danny Furr testified:

Q: Tell me about the calls for service to 1400 Corbett Drive.

A: Over a period of time, we’ve received several calls for service ranging from
public disorderly conduct, to breach of peace, to domestic violence, to nudity, to
warrant services and wanted individuals.

Q: And have you had to respond out to 1400 Corbett Drive, say, an inordinate
number of times?

A Yes. That particular neighborhood is a – a predominately safe neighborhood.

[Ex. 1, Hearing Trans., p. 66, l. 5-20].

Captain Furr’s testimony showed traditional law enforcement methods did not deter

Respondents’ nuisance behavior. Therefore, Respondent Janet Butler’s argument is not

persuasive.

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
V. Evidence of Nuisance Activity after the Action’s Filing Is Admissible.

Respondent Janet Butler argued Petitioner should not be allowed to present evidence of

nuisance activity after the action’s filing. Put differently, after the action was filed, any nuisance

activity by Respondents was inadmissible.

This argument is not logical. If the Respondents continued to engage in nuisance activity

after being served with the action, then this would be further proof that an injunction was needed.

As to the weight given to this evidence (i.e. an arrest versus a conviction), this was for the

Court to determine. See Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 344 S.C. 21, 26, 542 S.E.2d 723, 726 (2001)

(“A trial judge’s role in a bench trial is to admit all evidence and then evaluate it in a non-jury

setting.”).

Notwithstanding these arguments, the Court’s temporary injunction order did not

reference Respondents Worden Butler and Alexis Hartnett’s arrests after the action’s filing.

Therefore, Respondent Janet Butler’s motion to amend should be denied on these

grounds.

VI. The Temporary Injunction Order Neither Condemned the Property Nor Prevented
Respondent Janet Butler from Accessing the Property.

Respondent Janet Butler argued the temporary injunction order was an imbalance of the

equities because the Court’s “condemnation of the property in total and preventing Respondent

[Janet Butler] from accessing the property [was] more drastic relief than mere abatement.”

[Respondent Janet Butler’s Motion to Alter or Amend, p. 5].

This is not an accurate description of the temporary injunction order. The order did not

condemn the property, and Respondent Janet Butler can access the property after receiving

written permission from the Horry County Police Department. Therefore, these are not

persuasive arguments for the Court to amend its order.

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
VII. As the Property Owner, Respondent Janet Butler Bears Responsibility for the
Nuisance Activity.

Respondent Janet Butler argued she should be given free access to the property because

she did not commit any of the nuisance actions. She further argued Respondents Worden Butler

and Alexis Hartnett no longer live on the property, and therefore, the nuisance is abated.

As the property owner, Respondent Janet Butler bears responsibility for the nuisance

activity at the property. She allowed Respondents Worden Butler and Alexis Hartnett to continue

living on the property and threatening the community. She allowed the trenches and motes to be

dug in the yard. She allowed the deer head to be put on a pole in the front yard. Due to

Respondent Janet Butler’s failure to manage her property, the community had to live with people

one neighbor described as “dangerous and unpredictable.” [Ex. 1, Hearing Trans., p. 60, l. 7-8].

Photo of trenches at 1400 Corbett Dr.

By contrast, Respondent Janet Butler seemed oblivious to these concerns. She testified:

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
Q: I understand. But you know that she’s been living with Worden at 1400 for
quite some time?

A: Yes. The two of them have been living together for quite a few years.

Q: And you allowed that to happen?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Why have you allowed that?

A: Because it was a safe place for the two of them to live.

[Ex. 1, Hearing Trans., p. 81, l. 6-14].

Q: Where do you want Worden to live?

A: I would love to have Worden live in the house and property that he has
maintained and taken care of for the last ten years.

[Id. at 87, 21-24].

In short, Respondent Janet Butler did not express any concern for the impact her

tenants were having on the community.

As Captain Danny Furr testified, “The reason for the [nuisance action] is the fact that the

owner of the property is unwilling to help in rectifying the situation, so we have no choice. No

one wants to put anybody out, but when you are getting no cooperation from the owner of the

property, you have no choice but to go this route.” [Id. at 74, 18-24].

Therefore, Respondent Janet Butler also bears responsibility for the nuisance activity.

As to Respondents Worden Butler and Alexis Harnett being gone, this does not mean

they cannot return. The temporary injunction order ensures the nuisance activity does not return.

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 Sep 18 10:17 AM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP2600620
VIII. There Have Been No Issues with Capt. Furr as Respondent Janet Butler’s Point of
Contact.

Respondent Janet Butler argued it was improper for Captain Furr to be the point of

contact for her to enter the property because Captain Furr testified for the Petitioner.

However, Captain Furr has been the point of contact for the past six months. There is no

evidence that Captain Furr has either mistreated Respondent Janet Butler or acted differently

than any other officer.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Petitioner asks this Court to deny Respondent Janet Butler’s

motion to alter or amend the temporary injunction order.

Respectfully submitted,

s/James R. Battle
SC Bar #73604
Special Prosecutor for the 15th Judicial Circuit
J.R. Battle Law Firm, LLC
1809 N Oak Street
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29577
P: 843-839-5310
F: 888-315-6669
jbattle@jrbattlelawfirm.com
September 18, 2024