The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded a circuit court decision in *Spring Valley Interests, LLC v. The Best for Last, LLC*, a complex property law case that addresses fundamental questions about the rule against perpetuities under state law. The court issued its opinion on Jan. 7, 2026, after hearing oral arguments on Oct. 21, 2025.
The dispute centers on whether the South Carolina Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities (SCUSRAP), enacted in 1987, completely abolished the common law rule against perpetuities for nonvested property interests arising from nondonative transfers. The case involves a perpetual option to purchase real estate, which both parties agree arose from an arm's-length transaction for value.
Spring Valley Interests, LLC sued The Best for Last, LLC to enforce its perpetual option to purchase real property. The circuit court apparently ruled against Spring Valley, prompting the appeal that ultimately reached the state's highest court through a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals.
The rule against perpetuities has long been considered one of the most complex areas of property law. As Justice James noted in the opinion, the common law rule mandated that "no interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, no later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest." The court acknowledged that this rule "has bedeviled law students and practitioners for ages."
Rather than determining whether the perpetual option violated the traditional rule against perpetuities, the Supreme Court focused on the novel legal question of whether South Carolina's 1987 statutory changes eliminated the common law rule for certain types of property interests. This represents a significant development in South Carolina property law, as it addresses the interaction between longstanding common law principles and more recent statutory reforms.
The case originated in Richland County Circuit Court under Judge Jocelyn Newman before proceeding through the appellate system. Spring Valley was represented by Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani of Richardson Plowden & Robinson, PA, of Columbia, and Kenneth Ray Raynor of Raynor Law Firm, PLLC, of Charlotte, North Carolina. The Best for Last was represented by Kirby Darr Shealy III of Adams and Reese LLP of Columbia.
The Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand suggests that the circuit court may have incorrectly applied the law regarding perpetual options and the rule against perpetuities. By remanding the case, the high court is directing the lower court to reconsider its decision in light of the Supreme Court's interpretation of how SCUSRAP affects nonvested property interests from commercial transactions.
This ruling has significant implications for real estate transactions and property development in South Carolina. Perpetual options are sometimes used in commercial real estate deals to provide one party with the long-term right to purchase property at predetermined terms. The clarity provided by this decision will help practitioners and parties structure such agreements with greater certainty about their enforceability.
The distinction between donative and nondonative transfers is crucial to understanding the scope of this ruling. Donative transfers typically involve gifts or inheritances, while nondonative transfers involve arm's-length commercial transactions where consideration is paid. The court's focus on nondonative transfers suggests the ruling may not affect traditional estate planning contexts where the rule against perpetuities commonly applies.
The case also highlights the ongoing evolution of property law as states grapple with centuries-old common law rules that may not suit modern commercial practices. South Carolina's adoption of SCUSRAP in 1987 represented an attempt to modernize and clarify perpetuities law, but questions remained about how completely it displaced the common law rule.
The Supreme Court's opinion provides needed guidance on this intersection of old and new law. While the full text of the court's reasoning is not available in the filing information, the reversal and remand suggests the lower court failed to properly consider how the statutory rule against perpetuities should be applied to the perpetual option in question.
Legal practitioners handling real estate transactions involving options, rights of first refusal, and similar property interests will need to carefully review this decision to understand its full implications. The ruling may affect how such instruments are drafted and whether additional protections or time limitations should be included.
The case will now return to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of South Carolina law. This may involve a new trial or reconsideration of the original motion, depending on the specific procedural posture when the case was appealed.
For Spring Valley Interests, the reversal represents a victory that keeps alive its claim to enforce the perpetual option. For The Best for Last, the remand means continued litigation over the property interest in question. The ultimate resolution will depend on how the circuit court applies the Supreme Court's guidance on remand.