STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) FOR THE 14TH JUDICIAL CIRCIUT COUNTY OF BEAUFORT ) CIVIL ACTION No: 2021-CP-07-02146 ) PRESSTAR 2011, LLC and ) PRESSTAR 2018,LLC ) AMENDED ) ANSWER TO 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, ) and ) ANSWER TO CROSSCLAIM COMPLAINT ) OF RUFUS HARVEY vs. ) and ) COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSSCLAIMS THE ESTATE OF AMOS ) AGAINST DEFENDANTS WAYNE BROWN EDWARD BOWMAN, et. al. ) AND JOSEPH STANTON ) Defendants. ) ) The Defendant, Dr. Dámond Gadsen (“Gadsen”), responding to the allegations of the Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff and the Crossclaim Complaint of Rufus Harvey would state as follows: 1. That all allegations of the Complaint not hereinafter expressly admitted, qualified, or explained are hereby denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. AS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE INTRODUCTION 2. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1and 2 are conclusory and require no responsive pleading and to the extent they require responsive pleading, they are denied. 3. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 constitute conclusions of law and require no responsive pleading and to the extent same be deemed to require responsive pleading, they are denied. AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4. That Paragraph 4 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 5. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 5 through 25 are admitted. Wherefore, the Defendant Gadsen prays this Honorable Court inquire into the allegations Contained in the Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action and grant the Plaintiff the relief sought in those causes of action, together with such other and further relief as may be just and equitable. AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 6. That Paragraph 26 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 7. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 27 through 44 are admitted. Wherefore, the Defendant Gadsen prays this Honorable Court inquire into the allegations contained in the Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action and grant the Plaintiff the relief sought in those causes of action, together with such other and further relief as may by just and equitable. AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 8. That Paragraph 45 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 9. That the Defendant Gadsen is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 10. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 are admitted. 11. That the Defendant Gadsen is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53 and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof. 12. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 54 and 55 are admitted, subject to the claim of Gadsen as to access to the Gadsen Parcel from Bailey Circle encumbering The Presstar2011 Property and the Stanton Parcel. 13. That the Defendant Gadsen admits the allegations of Paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 59 (a. thru i), 60, 61, 62 (a & b), 63, and 64. 14. That the Defendant Gadsen admits the allegations of Paragraph 65, subject to the claim of Gadsen as to access to the Gadsen Parcel from Bailey Circle encumbering The Presstar2011 Property and the Stanton Parcel. 15. That the Defendant Gadsen admits the allegations of Paragraphs 66, 67, and 68. 16. That the Defendant Gadsen admits the allegations of Paragraphs 69, 70, 71, and 72 subject to the claim of Gadsen as to access to the Gadsen Parcel from Bailey Circle encumbering The Presstar2011 Property and the Stanton Parcel. Wherefore, the Defendant Gadsen prays this Honorable Court inquire into the allegations contained in the Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action and grant the Plaintiff the relief sought in those causes of action, subject to the right of Gadsen to access to the Gadsen Parcel from Bailey Circle encumbering The Presstar2011 Property and the Stanton Parcel across the existing rights or way, or roads, together with such other and further relief as may by just and equitable. AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION 17. That Paragraph 73 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 18. That the Defendant Gadsen admits the allegations contained in Paragraphs 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79. Wherefore, the Defendant Gadsen prays this Honorable Court inquire into the allegations contained in the Plaintiff’s First Alternative Cause of Action and grant the Plaintiff the relief sought in those causes of action, together with such other and further relief as may by just and equitable. BY WAY OF ANSWER AND REPLY TO THE ANSWER, COUNTER-CLAIMS AND CROSSCLAIMS OF RUFUS HARVEY 19. That the Defendant Gadsen denies all allegations and affirmative statements of the Defendant Rufus Harvey (“Harvey”) contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Harvey’s Answer, Crossclaims and Counterclaims as may allege Harvey has any ownership of or interest in the Gadsen Parcel. 20. That the allegations of Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are denied. 21. That the Defendant Gadsen denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and further would allege the referenced deed allegedly conveying 44 acres from Jerome Pinckney and Charles Pinckney, Jr. to Wilson Harvey failed to convey any portion of the Gadsen Parcel because the prior deed in the chain of title from Annie Evans to Jerome Pinckney and Charles Pinckney, Jr., which was recorded in the Beaufort County Register of Deeds Office (the “ROD”) in Book 70, Page 509, conveyed only a 10- acre parcel and a 23-acre parcel which is noncontiguous to the Gadsen Parcel and the Presstar2011 Parcel. ANSWER TO FIRST CROSS-CLAIM 22. That Paragraph 14 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 23. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. ANSWER TO SECOND CROSS-CLAIM 24. That Paragraph 16 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 25. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 17 and 18 are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. ANSWER TO THIRD CROSS-CLAIM 26. That Paragraph 19 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 27. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. ANSWER TO FOURTH CROSS-CLAIM 28. That Paragraph 21 is cumulative in nature of previous factual allegations and requires no responsive pleading and to the extent it may require responsive pleading, they are denied. 29. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. SECOND DEFENSE (Failure to State Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Cause of Action) 16. The Crossclaim fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to Plaintiff and should be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP. THIRD DEFENSE (Statutory Priority) 17. Pursuant to S.C. Code § 12-49-10, the lien for the unpaid taxes due on the subject property is a first lien in all cases whatsoever upon the property taxed, and consequently, Gadsen’s claim of ownership is superior to those of Harvey. FOURTH DEFENSE (Superior Record Title) 18. The documents referenced in the Khalil Plat do not support the claims made in the Khalil Plat and reference only two noncontiguous parcels totaling only 33 acres, not the 44 acres Harvey claims. Further, that the property description of the 23 acres property referenced in Deed Book 70 at Page 509 does not describe a parcel adj2oining or sharing a common boundary with the Presstar2011 Parcel or the Gadsen Parcel. 19. The Tax Deed to Gadsen, recorded in Record Book 3717 at Page 1974 and Record Book 3780 at Page 637 (Corrective Deed) conveying the Gadsen Parcel to Gadsen constitutes title superior to that alleged by Harvey. 20. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. FIFTH DEFENSE (Chain of Title) 20. The forty-year lapse statute set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-380 does not apply because Gadsen traced the chain of title for the Gadsen Parcel (as described in the Amended Complaint) back to 1972, which is well within the forty-year statutory period. SIXTH DEFENSE (Lack of Presumption of Grant) 21. To obtain title to a disputed property under the presumption of grant, the possession must be continuous, hostile, open, actual, notorious, and exclusive for twenty years. 20. Mere possession does not afford the presumption of grant, it must also be inconsistent with the existence of title in another, and under a claim or right or title. 22. Harvey cannot claim presumption of grant because he did not openly use the disputed land in a hostile manner for twenty years against the previous owners and Gadsen. SEVENTH DEFENSE (Recording Act) 23. Harvey’s claims are barred by the Recording Act, S.C. Code § 30-7-10. EIGHTH DEFENSE (Statutes of Limitation) 24. Harvey obtained title to the First Harvey Parcel in 1977 and has had knowledge that Beaufort County and others dispute his claimed ownership of 44 acres. 21. Accordingly, Harvey’s claims are barred by all applicable statutes of limitation. NINETH DEFENSE (No Adverse Possession/Mistake). 25. Harvey has not taken continuous, hostile, open, actual notorious, nor exclusive possession of any portion of the Gadsen Parcel and has not cleared, cultivated, enclosed, or improved any portion thereof. 26. Further, a person may adversely possess a property they mistakenly believe they own. TENTH DEFENSE (Equitable Defenses) 22. Harvey obtained title to the First Harvey Parcel in 1977 and has had knowledge that Beaufort County and others dispute his claimed ownership of 44 acres. 23. For these and other reasons, Harvey’s claims are barred by all equitable doctrines, including, but not limited to, waiver, consent, estoppel, unjust enrichment, and unclean hands. COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT WAYNE BROWN, AND DEFENDANT JOSEPH STATON 27. That all of the factual allegation admitted by the Defendant Gadsen in the prior pleadings are hereby realleged herein as if set forth verbatim. 28. That the Gadsen Parcel currently has and has historically had and maintained access from Bailey Circle to the parcel over and across the “10’Foot Dirt Road” (the “Access Road”) as shown and described on the Plat. 29. That upon information and belief Gadsen and his predecessors in title have utilized the Access Road since the Gadsen Parcel was severed from the original 21 acre tract pursuant to the deed of Rosella Bowman dated July 6, 1972, and recorded on the ROD in Record Book 199 at Page 1536. 30. That as to the portion of the Access Road which is located on Presstar2011 Parcel, Gadsen is informed and believes: (i) the use of the Access Road was in existence at the time of severance, (ii) it was not a temporary or casual use, as it was the sole source of access, (iii) the Access road was utilized by the owners of both the Presstar2011 parcel and the Gadsen Parcel since the time of severance, (iv) the Access Road is necessary for any reasonable use of the Gadsen Parcel, (v) Presstar2011 and their predecessors in title utilized the Access Road for access to their property after the severance. 31. As to the portion of the Access Road located on the lands of the Defendants Brown and Staton, Gadsen and his predecessors in title have utilized the Access Road: (i) for a continuous and uninterrupted period of more than twenty (20) years, and (ii) such use has been open and known to the Defendants Brown and Staton and the other adjacent property owners. Therefore, having fully responded to the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint and the Cross-Complaint for Bowman and setting forth his Cross-Claims and Counter-Claim, the Defendant Gadsen would request this Honorable Court inquire into the matters set forth herein and dismiss the Cross Complaint with costs awarded to the Defendant and further issue its order: (i) confirming the validity of the “Tax Sale” and; (ii) confirming that fee simple absolute title to the Tax Sale Parcel is vested in the Defendant Dr. Damon Gadsen; and, (iii) for confirmation of the Gadsen’s rights in the Access Road; and, (iv) for such other relief as may be just, proper, and equitable. VAUX MARSCHER BERGLIND, P.A. 16 Wm. Pope Drive, Suite 202 Bluffton, SC 29909 (843) 705-2888 ss\William F. Marscher, III William F. Marscher, III August 8, 2024 Bluffton, SC