The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling in *Shem Creek Development Group, LLC v. The Town of Mount Pleasant*, affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating in part, and remanding the case with instructions to the lower court. The dispute centered on a failed public parking garage project that became mired in municipal politics and regulatory disputes.
The case arose from Mount Pleasant's need to address parking shortages driven by its growing population and tourism industry. Shem Creek Development Group approached the town with a proposal for a new parking garage, leading to a contract under which SCDG would build, own, and operate the facility while the Town committed to leasing 132 parking spaces.
Under the agreement's terms, the Town would pay $185,000 annually for the initial 15-year term, with potential rent reductions based on a prorated formula tied to the garage's yearly net profit. The rent payments were scheduled to begin on the "Rental Commencement Date," defined as when the certificate of occupancy was issued for the garage.
The project encountered fierce opposition once the contract became public. According to the court's opinion, the Town Council faced "strident citizen opposition to the project," which led to what the court characterized as a "remarkable campaign of regulatory nitpicking." The court noted that town officials "manipulated the zoning code to frustrate the project plans."
Faced with what appeared to be systematic obstruction by the municipality, SCDG terminated the contract, claiming the Town had anticipatorily breached the agreement. The court described SCDG's decision as an attempt to avoid watching "the project die the death of a thousand cuts by what appeared to be the Town's sabotage of itself and SCDG." The garage was never constructed.
Following the contract termination, SCDG sold most of its interest in the project to a third party, with whom it partnered in subsequent legal proceedings. The case proceeded through the Charleston County Circuit Court under Judge Maite Murphy before reaching the state's highest court.
The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 21, 2025, and issued its memorandum opinion on Nov. 12, 2025. The per curiam opinion, designated as Memorandum Opinion No. 2025-MO-042, carries a significant limitation noted at the beginning: "THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR."
The legal representation in the case included David Guy Pagliarini of Pagliarini Law Firm, LLC, and Andrew F. Lindemann of Lindemann Law Firm, P.A., representing the Town of Mount Pleasant as petitioner. E. Brandon Gaskins of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, represented Shem Creek Development Group as respondent.
The mixed nature of the Supreme Court's ruling suggests the case involved multiple legal issues, with the justices finding merit in different aspects of both parties' arguments. The court's decision to remand with instructions indicates that further proceedings will be necessary in the lower court to resolve remaining issues.
The case highlights the complex legal and practical challenges that can arise in public-private partnerships, particularly when political opposition emerges after agreements are finalized. The court's description of the Town's conduct as potentially sabotaging its own project suggests municipal officials may face legal consequences when they appear to undermine contractual commitments through regulatory manipulation.
For Mount Pleasant, the ruling represents a continued legal battle over a project that generated significant community controversy. The town's actions in response to citizen opposition ultimately led to the project's termination and ongoing litigation costs.
The dispute also underscores the importance of clear contractual terms in development agreements and the potential legal risks municipalities face when they change course on approved projects due to political pressure. The court's characterization of the Town's conduct as potentially anticipatory breach suggests that municipalities cannot simply use regulatory authority to avoid contractual obligations.
While the specific details of what aspects were affirmed, reversed, or vacated were not included in the available portion of the opinion, the remand with instructions indicates the case will return to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance.
The legal teams will now need to address the Supreme Court's instructions as the case continues in Charleston County Circuit Court. The ultimate resolution may provide guidance for other municipalities and developers engaged in similar public-private parking partnerships, though the opinion's non-precedential status limits its broader legal impact.