“A suit for declaratory judgment is neither legal nor equitable, but is determined by the nature of the underlying issue.” City of Hartsville v. S.C. Mun. Ins. & Risk Fin. Fund, 382 S.C. 535, 543, 677 S.E.2d 574, 578 (2009) (quoting Felts v. Richland County, 303 S.C. 354, 356, 400 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1991)). Condemnation actions are actions at law. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. Arnold, 287 S.C. 584, 586, 340 S.E.2d 535, 537 (1986). Actions involving the interpretation of statutes, such as the CWA, are also actions at law. See Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Rollison, 378 S.C. 600, 606-07, 663 S.E.2d 484, 487 (2008) (“[B]ecause this action involves the interpretation of a contract and statutes, it is an action at law.”); In re Estate of Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455, 458-59, 502 S.E.2d 920, 921 (Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). In an action at law tried without a jury, the
recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse holding that an action concerning the application of the omitted spouse statute was an action at law holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations