R.c. Frederick Hanold, Iii and Rose F. Hanold, and Carol R. Mitchell and George P. Mitchell, Jr., Respondents, V…

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the petitioners had not "developed" their property under the plain meaning of the restrictive covenants and therefore lacked voting rights; the Court also clarified that "developed" and "improved" are distinct terms. Justice Pleicones concurred in the result and expressed concern about the majority’s definition of the terms.