ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF HORRY FIFTHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Wanda Banning, William D. Gore, Margaret SUMMONS

M. Gore, and Karen E. Gore
Plainti s,
Vs.
County of Horry and Johnny Gardner,
Harold Worley, Bill Howard, Dennis
DiSabato, Gary Loftus, Tyler Servant, Cam
Crawford, Orton Bellamy, Johnny Vaught, R.
Case No. 2021-CP-26-_____
Mark Causey, Danny Hard, and Al Allen,
both individually and in their o cial capacity
as elected members of the Horry County
Council,
Defendants.

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this
action, a copy of which is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to said
Complaint on the subscriber at 156 Laurens Street NW, Aiken, SC 29801 within thirty (30) days
after service hereof, exclusive of the day of service hereof. AND IF YOU FAIL to answer the
Complaint within the time aforesaid, the Plainti in this action will apply to the Court for the
relief demanded in the Complaint.

s/ Jonathan D. Waller
Jonathan D. Waller, Esquire
SC Bar Number: 76290
Angell Molony, LLC
210 Newberry Street NW
Aiken, South Carolina 29801
803.335.1449

Aiken, South Carolina ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Dated: December 10, 2021

Page 1 of 8



ff

ffi

ff

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF HORRY, FIFTHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Wanda Banning, William D. Gore, Margaret Complaint

M. Gore, and Karen E. Gore
Plainti s,
Vs.
County of Horry and Johnny Gardner,
Harold Worley, Bill Howard, Dennis
DiSabato, Gary Loftus, Tyler Servant, Cam
Crawford, Orton Bellamy, Johnny Vaught, R.
Case No. 2021-CP-26-_____
Mark Causey, Danny Hard, and Al Allen,
both individually and in their o cial capacity
as elected members of the Horry County
Council,
Defendants.

COMES NOW Plainti Wanda Banning, by and through her undersigned attorneys and states its

Complaint against Defendants County of Horry and Johnny Gardner, Harold Worley, Bill

Howard, Dennis DiSabato, Gary Loftus, Tyler Servant, Cam Crawford, Orton Bellamy, Johnny

Vaught, R. Mark Causey, Danny Hardee, Al Allen, individually and in their o cial capacity as

appointed members of the Horry County Council (collectively referred to as “Defendants”)

relating to Resolution R-142-2020 passed on November 17, 2020 by Defendants (attached as

Exhibit A hereto) as follows: .

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. The Plainti Wanda Banning is a resident of Lexington County, South Carolina.

2. The Plainti s William D. Gore, Margaret M. Gore, and Karen E. Gore are residents of

Horry County, South Carolina.

Page 2 of 8

ff
ff
ff
ff

ffi

ffi
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972
3. Defendant County of Horry (“Council”) is a political subdivision organized under the laws

of the State of South Carolina.

4. Defendants Johnny Gardner, Harold Worley, Bill Howard, Dennis DiSabato, Gary Loftus,

Tyler Servant, Cam Crawford, Orton Bellamy, Johnny Vaught, R. Mark Causey, Danny

Hardee, Al Allen are residents of Horry County and serve as members of the Council. They

are sued in their individual and o cial capacities.

5. The Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant

to the South Carolina Constitution, Article V, section 11.

6. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 15-78-100

because the most substantial part of the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the cause of

action occurred in this County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. Plainti s inherited or otherwise acquired the real property containing 66.60 Acres, as

designated on the Horry County, South Carolina tax maps as TMS# 1170002072,

1030002158, 103000-2156, and TMS #1030004007, located in Horry County South Carolina,

more commonly known as the "NW of INT SC 26-111 & SC 26-57TR1, REMA INDER

TRACT 2-A , W/SIDE HWY 111, TRACT 2B; 1100N BROOKSVL XRD” (hereinafter

“Property”) and are the current owners of the respective tracts.

8. This Property is currently zoned for agricultural use.

9. On November 17, 2020, Defendants passed Resolution R-142-2020 which expresses the

Defendants’’ “support of no more rezoning on Hwy 57, basically 1.5 miles wide up that

corridor from Hwy 9 to the state line.”

Page 3 of 8
ff

ffi

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

10. Defendant Worley stated, “the road is gridlocked. [...] He had three developers come to him

in the last 60 days. One of them has tract that had 300 homes on it. There was another with

400 on it and another with 200 on it. No way. Not going to happen. A couple of these owners

were childhood friends of his. It was hard for him to say no but he had to because it was a bad

situation out there. [...] He was going to do what he believed he could do as the representative

of that area to slow that home building down in that area until they could get some roads out

there and get some relief on Hwy 57. He asked that the other Council members to back him

up and support him on this and support the people.”

11. Defendant Jordan goes on to state, “this was a resolution so it did not have the power of law

but it was a policy statement more so. So if someone wanted to apply for a rezoning, they

could still apply but they were saying as a body that they were not going to rezone it.”

12. E ectively, making a decision before any property owner has the chance to be heard.

13. Defendant DiSabato asked “if this didn’t amount to spot zoning.”

14. Defendant Jordan replied, “No. Being a resolution it would not be spot zoning.”

15. This resolution has no temporal deadline, meaning it will never expire.

16. Defendant Vaught states, “[t]hey were basically serving notice to the developers and people

up there that they were not going to look favorable on developments on Hwy 57.

17. By passing Resolution R-142-2020, Defendants spot zoned a nine mile stretch of land without

allowing the property owners to be heard on the issue and furthermore, failing to compensate

the property owners on that stretch of land, rising to a regulatory taking of their land.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment – S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-10, et seq.)

18. Plainti s re-allege the allegations above as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

19. Plainti s are entitled to an order and judgment of this Court declaring the following:

Page 4 of 8
ff
ff
ff

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

a. Defendants have no authority to inde nitely place a moratorium on Hwy 57 between the

state line and Hwy 9;

b. The inde nite placement of a moratorium on Hwy 57 between the state line and Hwy 9 is

invalid and Defendants acted in excess of their lawfully delegated authority;

c. The decision to impose an inde nite moratorium on Hwy 57 between the state line and

Hwy 9 violated Plainti s’ rights to due process both constitutionally and statutorily;

d. And Plainti s are entitled to use the Property however they see t.

20. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §15-77-300, Plainti s pray for an award of reasonable attorney’s

fees and costs.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Tortious Interference with Current and Prospective Contractual Relations)

21. Plainti s re-allege the allegations above as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

22. Plainti s have an identi able prospective contract or expectation of a contractual

relationship.

23. Upon information and belief, the Defendants have actual or constructive knowledge of

Plainti s’ prospective contractual relationships on the Property.

24. By issuing Resolution R-142-2020, Defendants have intentionally caused and procured a

breach of Plainti s’ prospective contractual relationships for the Property.

25. The Defendants knew, or should have known, Resolution R-142-2020 would have a material

e ect on Plainti s’ ability to honor their prospective contractual relations.

26. The interference into Plainti s’ prospective contractual relationships were taken for an

improper purpose and/or by improper methods.

Page 5 of 8
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi
ff

ff
ff

ff
fi
ff
fi
fi

ff

fi

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

27. As a result of Defendants’ tortious and intentional interference, Plainti s have, and will in the

future incur irreparable harm, in addition to actual, consequential, and incidental damages

and lost pro ts that exceed Five Million ($5,000,000.00) dollars.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Regulatory Taking)

28. Plainti s re-allege the allegations above as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

29. Plainti s have been deprived of the economically viable use of the Property resulting from the

Defendants’ unreasonable and illegal regulatory action.

30. Defendants’ unreasonable and illegal actions constitute an overly broad and unconstitutional

taking of Plainti s’ developable land without just compensation.

31. As a result of the Defendants’ overly broad and unconstitutional taking, the Defendants have

interfered with Plainti s’ distinct and reasonable investment and property.

32. Defendants’ actions have interfered and destroyed Plainti s’ distinct nancial expectations to

the Property.

33. Defendants’ actions have and will result in economic losses that threaten the very existence

of Plainti s’ prospective business and will result in loss of goodwill and other losses that

cannot be easily calculated into pecuniary terms.

34. Plainti s are entitled to injunctive relief and judgment against the Defendants for their

unconstitutional taking of the Property for damages.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

35. Plainti s re-allege the allegations above as if fully repeated verbatim herein.

36. The United States Constitution provides: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without dire process of law.” U.S. Const., Amend. XIV.

Page 6 of 8
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
fi

ff
ff

ff

fi
ff

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

37. The United States Constitution provides: [N]or shall private property be taken for public use,

without just compensation.” U.S. Const., Amend. V.

38. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plainti s have su ered a deprivation of rights and

privileges secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

39. Defendants’ Resolution R-142-2020 was an act causing Plainti s deprivation and was

committed by a person acting under the color of law.

40. The actions of the Defendants were procedurally invalid, overly broad, and constitute a

wrongful denial of Plainti s’ rights to procedural due process.

41. Resolution R-142-2020 was not handled in accordance with the procedural requirements of

the S.C. Code of Laws and consistent local ordinances of the County.

42. Defendants issued Resolution R-142-2020 based on false accusations and wrongful

interpretation of the law without reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard at a

meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

43. Defendants’ decision to issue Resolution R-142-2020 has no foundation in reason and is a

mere arbitrary and irrational exercise of power.

44. Resolution R-142-2020 has no substantial relation to the public health or public welfare as the

landowners on the other portions of this Highway are able to use the land as they deem t.

45. Defendants have substantially deprived Plainti s of their cognizable property interest.

46. Defendants have taken the Property without just compensation.

47. Defendants were not acting within the scope of discretionary authority when they decided

Resolution R-142-2020 which inde nitely terminates Plainti s from any use of the Property.

48. Defendants’ conduct was motivated by wrongful motives or intent, or otherwise involved by

reckless or callous indi erence to the federally protected rights to Plainti s.

Page 7 of 8
ff
ff
fi
ff

ff

ff
ff

ff

ff

fi

 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 10 10:26 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP2607972

49. Plainti s are entitled to judgment, including injunctive relief, against the Defendants for its

violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1971, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an amount of

actual and compensatory damages to be proven at trial.

50. Plainti s are entitled to an award of all costs and attorney’s fees associated with bringing this

action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and S.C. Code Ann. 15-77-300.

WHEREFORE, having fully set forth his claims against the Defendants, Plainti s pray for

the following:

A. A jury trial on the cause of action alleged in this Complaint;

B. Declaratory Judgment;

C. For actual, incidental, and consequential damages;

D. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief;

E. The costs of this action, including an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees;

F. Prejudgment interest; and

G. Such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

s/ Jonathan D. Waller
Jonathan D. Waller, Esquire
SC Bar Number: 76290
Angel Molony, LLC
210 Newberry St. NW
Aiken, South Carolina 29801
803.335.1449

Aiken, South Carolina ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Dated: December 10, 2021

Page 8 of 8








ff
ff

ff