ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HORRY COUNTY CASE NO.: 2023-CP-26-05739

State of South Carolina on the relation of

Jimmy A. Richardson, II, Solicitor of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
ORDER FOR TEMPORARY
PETITIONER, INJUNCTION
vs.

Joe Rideoutte, Jr.,

RESPONDENT.

This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion

for Temporary Injunction seeking an Order from this Court temporarily enjoining and restraining

the Respondent from using, maintaining, and assisting in the using or maintaining of a boarding

house located at 407 5th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in Horry County

(hereinafter the “Boarding House”) due to being a public nuisance in violation of S.C. Code Ann.

§§ 15-43-10 to 130; and to direct and command the Myrtle Beach Police Department or its

designees summarily to abate this public or common nuisance.

A hearing was held on Petitioner’s motion for a temporary injunction on October 11,

2023. Present at the hearing was Petitioner, through his attorney James R. Battle, as well as

Respondent and his attorney Bert von Herrmann. The Petitioner presented evidence to the Court

in the form of public records, documentary evidence, and affidavits. Respondent cross-examined

witnesses but did not present any evidence.

After duly considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, the Court

finds that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing to obtain the temporary injunction against

Respondent, and Respondent is hereby temporarily enjoined and restrained from operating,

1
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
using, maintaining, or assisting in the using and maintaining of the Boarding House until such

time as the matter may be heard fully by this Court on its merits. The Boarding House, including

the real property and all structures thereon, must be closed and not be allowed to open until a

merits hearing on this case or the expiration of one year from the date of this Order’s signing.

PETITIONER’S TEMPORARY INJUNCTION SHOWING

Petitioner presented evidence showing Respondent Joe Rideoutte, Jr. is the owner of the

property located at 407 5th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. For several years,

Respondent has rented individual rooms in the Boarding House to tenants.

On or around April 7, 2022, the Boarding House reopened after the Honorable Benjamin

H. Culbertson closed the Boarding House for one year due to being a nuisance. See Richardson

v. Rideoutte, CA No. 2020-CP-26-04732.

Beginning in April 2023, the Myrtle Beach Police Department (“MBPD”) saw an

increase in calls to the Boarding House related to larcenies and assault. On May 30, 2023, an

MBPD confidential informant purchased 14.97 grams of alleged methamphetamine from a drug

dealer at the Boarding House.

On August 25, 2023, two tenants at the Boarding House began fighting. Shots were fired

in the parking lot of the neighboring pizza restaurant, and one stabbed the other in the Boarding

House’s backyard. When officers arrived, there was a blood trail leading into the Boarding

House.

When officers searched the Boarding House pursuant to the shooting and stabbing, they

were concerned about the living conditions and called the City of Myrtle Beach Construction

Services Department, who determined the Boarding House was not fit for human habitation and

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
consequently boarded up the Boarding House in accordance with the City of Myrtle Beach Code

of Ordinances.

Soon after August 25, 2023, people began living in the Boarding House’s backyard. To

date, people are living in the backyard in tarp huts, sheds, and tents. There are neither bathrooms

nor running water in the backyard.

Since the House was boarded up and people began living in the backyard, there have

been calls to MBPD relating to people breaking into the Boarding House, people having fires in

the yard, and on September 15, 2023, a woman delivered a stillborn child in the backyard.

Investigators determined the woman was using heroin multiple times a day up to the birth.

Neighbors continue to complain about the nuisance activity coming from the Boarding

House. George Paraschos, the owner of Pizza a La Roma III, which is next door to the Boarding

House, testified to drug transactions regularly occurring at the Boarding House and stated in an

affidavit, “I am obligated to close earlier in the evening losing business because of what’s back

there in the Boarding House.” Another neighboring business stated in an affidavit, “Employees

are afraid to get out of their vehicles because of the actions taking place at the house.”

LAW/ANALYSIS

South Carolina Code §§ 15-43-10 to 130, as amended, clearly set forth the requirements

for establishing a public or common nuisance. Section 15-43-10 provides, in relevant part:

A person who…establishes, continues, maintains, uses, owns,

occupies, leases, or releases any building…for the purposes of…a
continuous breach of the peace is guilty of a nuisance; and the
building…itself…and the furniture, fixtures, musical instruments,
and moveable property…are also declared a nuisance and shall be
enjoined and abated…

“continuous breach of the peace” means a pattern of repeated acts

or conduct which either (1) directly disturbs the public peace or (2)
disturbs the public peace by inciting or tending to incite violence.

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
See also id. at (c) (stating “[n]othing in this section supplants, alters, or limits a…common law

right of a person to bring an action in court…for a violation of…common law”); cf. 27 C.J.S.

Disorderly Houses § 2 (stating “disorderly houses were considered a nuisance at common

law…because they tended to draw together idle and dissolute persons engaged in unlawful or

immoral practices, thus endangering the public morals or peace” (emphasis added)).

The existence of a public or common nuisance may be proven by general evidence of the

reputation of the building, the business, or the people who own or operate the business. See e.g.,

State v. McDowell, 23 S.C.L. 346 (Ct. App. 1838). Moreover, it is not necessary that the public

or common nuisance “be open to public observation…so long as it would be offensive to public

sensibilities if its presence in the community were generally known.” 24 Am. Jur. 2d Disorderly

Houses § 1.

Numerous cases from this and other jurisdictions, as well as treatises and common law

compilations, have clearly established what constitutes a public or common nuisance for

purposes of this and similar statutory schema. For example, in State v. Turner, 198 S.C. 487,

___, 18 S.E.2d 371, 373 (1942) (Turner I), in an appeal from a conviction for “maintaining a

public nuisance, in the keeping, management and operation of a disorderly house,” our Supreme

Court reasoned a place in “which idle, vicious, and dissolute persons are encouraged to

assemble, and are permitted to drink, swear, quarrel, fight and make loud and disturbing noises,

and engage in lewd and immoral conduct, to the disturbance and annoyance of the

neighborhood” would be considered a public nuisance because it “occurs in a public place, or

where the public frequently congregate, or where members of the public are likely to come

within the range of its influence.” Id. at ___, 18 S.E.2d at 375. The Court held “whatever shocks

the public morals and sense of decency…[is] a public nuisance.” Id. (internal quotation

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
omitted).

The Court further concluded:

If one maintains a place where people are allowed to frequent for

immoral purposes, such a place would be a common or public
nuisance, because it…affects the happiness, the tranquility and the
morals of the community. And it is not necessary that such a place
for such purposes be conducted openly or notoriously to constitute
a nuisance.

Id. at ___, 18 S.E.2d at 376; see also State v. Turner, 198 S.C. 499, 18 S.E.2d 376 (1942)

(Turner II) (discussing other issues related to Turner’s conviction for maintaining a public

nuisance); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-80 (stating the existence of a nuisance may be

proven in a criminal proceeding, prior to bringing a civil action seeking to enjoin and abate the

nuisance); cf. Commonwealth v. D’Andrea, 71 Pa. D & C.2d 770, 774 (Pa. Com. Pl. 1974)

(finding a bar was a common nuisance because, on three occasions, it either sold alcohol to

intoxicated persons, sold alcohol on Sunday, sold alcohol at unlawful hours, permitted gambling

on the premises, permitted minors to frequent the premises, or permitted female entertainers to

contact and associate with patrons).

Even when a building or place of business is properly maintained for a legitimate

business purpose, the use of that building may still constitute a nuisance. See, e.g., Malouf v.

Gully, 192 So. 2, 4 (Miss. 1939) (holding “the chancery court has authority to suppress as a

nuisance the place of business where the liquor is sold…The suppression of the place of business

means not only the liquor business, but [also] the mercantile [i.e., the legitimate] business.”);

United States v. Myers, 211 N.Y.S. 465, 467 (1925) (holding the court could enjoin the use of

“the building or structure which is thus maintained [as a nuisance], as well as its contents”); see

also 24 Am. Jur. 2d Disorderly Houses § 1 (stating a “disorderly house is one which is used

habitually for any illegal or immoral purpose” (emphasis added) (internal footnotes omitted)).

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
Finally, in determining whether a building or location is a public or common nuisance,

“[r]esort must always be had to sound common sense and due regard should be given to the

notions of comfort and convenience entertained by persons generally of ordinary tastes and

susceptibilities.” See O’Cain v. O’Cain, 322 S.C. 551, 561, 473 S.E.2d 460, 466 (Ct. App. 1996)

(emphasis in original) (citation omitted).

In this case, Petitioner’s showing in connection with the reputation of the Boarding

House

and the activities which occur on its premises leaves no doubt the premises of the Boarding

House itself is a public or common nuisance. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-10; cf. State v.

Sawtooth Men’s Club, 85 P.2d 695, 697 (Id. 1938) (“The trial judge no doubt arrived at the

conclusion that said hotel as managed by the defendant was, in and of itself, a nuisance which

state sought to abate. It was not the barroom, it was not the drinking of liquor; it was not the open

and notorious violation of the law; it was simply the hotel itself, which from the manner and

method of its use became a nuisance within the meaning of [the relevant statutory authority].”

(emphasis added))

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

In a public nuisance action the Court shall, upon the presentation of a petition therefore

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 by evidence in the form of affidavits, depositions, oral testimony or otherwise, as the

complainant may elect. S.C. Code § 15-43-30.

In the present showing, Petitioner has shown to the satisfaction of the Court by evidence

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
in the form of affidavits, documentation, and testimony that the Boarding House has been used

for repeated acts of unlawful possession or sale of controlled substances and a continuous breach

of the peace, and therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a temporary injunction enjoining the

operation of the Boarding House located at 407 5th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

in Horry

County.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Petitioner’s requested relief is hereby

granted, and Petitioner is hereby granted an Order:

1) Temporarily enjoining and restraining the above named Respondent, and each of his

agents, servants, subordinates, and employees, from leasing to, operating, using, or

assisting in the using of the Boarding House located at 407 5th Avenue North, Myrtle

Beach, South Carolina in Horry County, including the real property and all structures located

thereon.

2) MBPD will post notices of this Order on the premises of the Boarding House. The MBPD

shall photograph the premises in order to document its current condition.

3) MBPD is further ordered to secure the entire premises of the Boarding House, including

the real property, by barricades or whatever reasonable means necessary, place police tape across

all doorways and entrances, all for the purpose of causing the effectual closing of the Boarding

House against its use for any purpose.

4) All persons must vacate the Boarding House and its surrounding real property from the

date of this Order.

5) This Order does not affect any finding of the City of Myrtle Beach Construction Services

Department.

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
6) This Order will not affect Respondent and the City of Myrtle Beach Construction

Services Department from attempting to resolve issues of habitability at the Boarding House.

Respondent and his designees must comply with any requirements set by the City of Myrtle

Beach Construction Services Department before entering the dwelling to assess and remedy

violations of the Myrtle Beach Code of Ordinances and building codes identified by the

Construction Services Department.

7) Respondent may enter the dwelling with the permission and accompaniment of the City

of Myrtle Beach Construction Services Department to assess and remedy violations of the Myrtle

Beach Code of Ordinances and building codes identified by the Construction Services

Department.

8) Any unauthorized persons on the Boarding House’s property, including those accessing

the dwelling without consent from the City of Myrtle Beach Construction Services Department,

shall be deemed a trespasser and subject to being held in contempt pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.

§§ 15-43-70 and -100.

9) This temporary injunction is terminated upon the trial of this case, but in no event shall

the temporary injunction last longer than 1 year.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2023 Nov 06 3:33 PM - HORRY - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2023CP2605739
Horry Common Pleas

Case Caption: South Carolina State Of , plaintiff, et al VS Joe Rideoutte Jr

Case Number: 2023CP2605739

Type: Order/Temporary Injunction

So Ordered

s/ Kristi F. Curtis, Circuit Court Judge, No. 2762

Electronically signed on 2023-11-06 11:54:26 page 9 of 9