Barrett v. Miller, 0287

• Decision Date: 30 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0287,0287
• Citation: 321 S.E.2d 198,283 S.C. 262
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Janie Bell BARRETT, Appellant, v. Reverend H.M. MILLER, Abraham Thompson, Lee Cliff Brown and H. Miller, Jr., as Trustees of the Church of God House of Prayer, Respondents. . Heard

Page 198

321 S.E.2d 198

283 S.C. 262

Janie Bell BARRETT, Appellant, v. Reverend H.M. MILLER, Abraham Thompson, Lee Cliff Brown and H. Miller, Jr., as Trustees of the Church of God House of Prayer, Respondents.

No. 0287.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard May 30, 1984.

Decided Sept. 27, 1984.

Marvin P. Jackson, Jr., Florence, for appellant.

H.W.C. Furman, Camden, for respondents.

GARDNER, Judge:

Appellant Barrett (Barrett), an elderly lady, owns a ten-acre tract of land in Lee County, South Carolina; her home is located on this tract. Barrett alleges that she agreed that Rev. H.M. Miller, et al. (the church) would be permitted to build a church building on a one-acre tract of land to be carved from her home tract. Barrett further alleges that this agreement was contingent upon her husband's being the pastor of the church and when and if he ceased to be the pastor, Barrett would then have the right to reoccupy the property. The church denies this agreement and alleges that Barrett executed and delivered a deed of the one-acre church lot to the church. The church was built by its congregation with many individual members, including Rev. Barrett, actually participating in the construction of the church. Later, at a time not disclosed by the record, the church decided to get a new minister and this litigation resulted.

Barrett's complaint alleges a cause of action to set aside an alleged deed to the church of the one-acre tract of land on the grounds that the deed is a forgery and an additional cause of action for ejectment. At trial the parties agreed (1) first to submit to the jury the issue of whether Barrett signed the deed and (2) that if the jury found for Barrett, the issue of what further relief should be given the parties would be tried by the judge without a jury. After a jury verdict for Barrett, the trial judge, by oral order not of record, referred the case to the master. The master found Barrett had been unjustly enriched and recommended an $8,500 verdict against Barrett which the trial judge granted. We reverse and remand.

Barrett makes no acceptable exception to the master's and trial judge's failure to specifically find that Barrett had agreed to permit the church to use the property only so long as her husband was the minister. An exception must be a concise, nonargumentive, specific statement of one proposition of law or fact which the appellant claims to have been violated by the lower court. Rule 4, Section 6, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court of South Carolina. This court will therefore not consider the master's failure to make a finding pertaining to Barrett's allegation about the limitation of the use of the property.

Barrett on appeal does,...