## Facts

- Developers contracted to purchase a 13-acre tract on Bryan Road in the Town of Hollywood, South Carolina, intending to subdivide it into 17 residential lots.
- Town staff informed the developers that rezoning was not required but that subdivision approval by the Town Planning Commission was required, along with notice to neighboring landowners and a traffic study.
- At a Planning Commission meeting, residents objected based on traffic-safety concerns; the Town maintained that a traffic study was required before approval.
- The developers closed on the property, recorded subdivision plats, and began construction without Planning Commission approval.
- The Town issued a stop-work order; the developers did not comply.
- The Town sought declaratory and injunctive relief to require compliance with its subdivision-approval process.
- The developers asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process and equal protection violations, plus state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the Town’s ordinances required Planning Commission approval before the developers could subdivide the property into 17 lots, justifying declaratory and injunctive relief.
2. Whether the developers presented legally sufficient evidence to support a § 1983 equal-protection verdict, including proof of differential treatment from similarly situated developers.
3. Whether the developers could recover attorney’s fees and costs after the equal-protection judgment was set aside.

## Decision

- Affirmed the circuit court’s summary judgment granting the Town declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Planning Commission approval for the subdivision.
- Reversed the denial of the Town’s directed-verdict and JNOV motions on the developers’ equal-protection claim and vacated the $450,000 damages award.
- Reversed the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the developers.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal subdivision ordinances requiring planning-commission approval are enforceable through declaratory and injunctive relief when developers proceed without required approvals.
- A § 1983 equal-protection claim in the land-use context requires proof that the government treated the plaintiff differently from truly similarly situated comparators; projects with materially different circumstances do not satisfy that element.
- When the evidence is legally insufficient on an essential element (such as similarly situated comparators), the trial court should grant a directed verdict or JNOV; a jury verdict cannot stand without a sufficient evidentiary basis.
- Fee shifting for § 1983 depends on prevailing-party status; when the underlying § 1983 judgment is vacated, an attorney’s-fee award based on that judgment must also be reversed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Town’s ability to require Planning Commission approval under its subdivision ordinances, but set aside the developers’ § 1983 equal-protection verdict because they failed to show differential treatment compared to similarly situated developers, eliminating both damages and the related attorney’s-fee award.


Town of Hollywood v. Floyd, 403 S.C. 466, 744 S.E.2d 161 (S.C. 2013)