Beckham v. Short
| Decision Date | 04 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23032,23032 |
| Parties | Thomas BECKHAM, Respondent, v. Sara Kay B. SHORT, Petitioner. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Paul E. Short, Jr., and Lamar H. Kelsey, III, Chester, for petitioner.
Brooks P. Goldsmith, of Thomas, Goldsmith, Folks & Hodges, Lancaster, for respondent.
This is an action to enforce an alleged oral trust of real property. We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Beckham v. Short, 294 S.C. 415, 365 S.E.2d 42 (Ct.App.1988). We affirm the result reached in the Court of Appeals' opinion.
Respondent Beckham (Father) deeded his home and eighty-four (84) acres of land to Petitioner Short (Daughter) in 1985. In 1986, Father sued Daughter, claiming she wrongfully refused to reconvey the property. Father sought a declaration from the court that Daughter held the property for his benefit pursuant to an oral trust allegedly entered into by the parties prior to the conveyance. Daughter interposed the Statute of Frauds as a defense, and the trial court granted her summary judgment motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding: (1) the trial court erred in excluding parol evidence that would have established Daughter's agreement to reconvey as the true consideration for the deed; and (2) the trial court erred in granting summary judgment where Father alleged acts of part performance sufficient to take the oral trust out of the Statute of Frauds.
Under S.C.Code Ann. § 62-7-101 (1987), trusts in lands not manifested and proved by some writing signed by the party declaring the trust are "utterly void and of no effect." Father did not allege the existence of any writing showing that Daughter held the property in trust. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals acknowledged both the trust Statute of Frauds (§ 62-7-101) and the general rule that parol evidence is not admissable to prove an express trust. 1 See Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559 (1987). The Court of Appeals nevertheless held that Father should have been allowed to demonstrate the existence of the trust via parol evidence, based on the following exception to the parol evidence rule: parol evidence of a contemporaneous independent agreement to reconvey real estate is admissible to show the true consideration for a deed.
We believe that the issue of oral trusts in lands is more appropriately addressed by reference to the trust Statute of Frauds than to the parol evidence rule and its exceptions. As stated in Scott on Trusts, § 38 (Fourth Ed.1987):
There are ... numerous cases that state that parol evidence is inadmissable to engraft a trust on an absolute conveyance of land. This, however, is because of the requirements of the Statute of Frauds and not because of the parol evidence rule. Where the property transferred is an interest in land situated in a state in which the Statute of Frauds requires a written memorandum, evidence of an oral trust or agreement is not admissable, not because the proof of such trust or agreement would vary the terms of the absolute deed of conveyance, but because of the failure to comply with the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.
See also Kinsey v. Bennett, 37 S.C. 319, 15 S.E. 965 (1892) ().
South Carolina is among the states with a Statute of Frauds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C. v. Episcopal Church
...trusts in real property "must be proved by some writing signed by the party creating the trust"); see also Beckham v. Short, 298 S.C. 348, 349, 380 S.E.2d 826, 827 (1989) (noting that under the then-applicable statute, "trusts in lands not manifested and proved by some writing signed by the......
-
All Saints Parish v. Protestant Episcopal Church
...Because we remand this case in full, we need not further address this issue. 12 The circuit court relied on Beckham v. Short, 298 S.C. 348, 349-50, 380 S.E.2d 826, 827 (1989), to support the proposition that parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a deed in the absence of fraud,......
-
All Saints Parish v. Protestant Episcopal Church, 3757.
...the Parish. Because we remand this case in full, we need not further address this issue. 12. The circuit court relied on Beckham v. Short, 298 S.C. 348, 349-50, 380 S.E.2d 826, 827 (1989), to support the proposition that parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a deed in the abse......
-
Handmaker v. Certusbank, N.A.
...the written paper to be a complete integration of the agreement.Beckham v. Short, 365 S.E.2d 42, 43 (S.C. Ct. App. 1988), aff'd, 380 S.E.2d 826 (S.C. 1989). Here, although the Employment Agreements contain a clause stating they represent the "entire understanding" of the parties, they also ......
-
Act 100, SB 143 – Probate Code
...with real estate from those funded with personalty. Both must be established by clear and convincing evidence. See Beckham v. Short, 380 S.E. 2d 826 (S.C. 1989). Absent some specific statutory provision, such as a Statute of Frauds provision requiring that transfers of real property be prov......
-
Act 66, SB 422 – Uniform Trust Code
...with real estate from those funded with personalty. Both must be established by clear and convincing evidence. See Beckham v. Short, 380 S.E. 2d 826 (S.C. 1989). South Carolina Trust Code Section 62-7-401(a)(2) requires a writing to create a declaration of trust (a self-trusteed trust). Sec......