Blackwell v. Blackwell

• Decision Date: 14 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 0755,0755
• Citation: 346 S.E.2d 731,289 S.C. 470
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: MoEden BLACKWELL, as executrix of the estate of George F. Blackwell, Appellant, v. Dianna P. BLACKWELL, Respondent. Marylyn B. POWELL, Susan B. Jeter, Judy Ann Blackwell, and Dianna Paige Blackwell, Respondents, v. MoEden BLACKWELL, individually and as executrix of the estate of George F. Blackwell, Appellant. . Heard

Page 731

346 S.E.2d 731

289 S.C. 470

MoEden BLACKWELL, as executrix of the estate of George F.

Blackwell, Appellant, v. Dianna P. BLACKWELL, Respondent.

Marylyn B. POWELL, Susan B. Jeter, Judy Ann Blackwell, and Dianna Paige Blackwell, Respondents, v. MoEden BLACKWELL, individually and as executrix of the

estate of George F. Blackwell, Appellant.

No. 0755.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 14, 1986.

Decided July 21, 1986.

E. LeRoy Nettles, Sr., of Nettles, Floyd, Turbeville & Reddeck, Lake City, for appellant.

Corinne B. Cannon, of Cannon & Cannon, Clemson, for respondents.

BELL, Judge:

These cases involve a dispute between a stepmother and her four stepdaughters over transactions which allegedly took place between the daughters and their deceased father, the stepmother's husband.

In the first case, the stepmother, MoEden Blackwell, as executrix of the estate of George F. Blackwell, sued her stepdaughter Dianna P. Blackwell, for actual and punitive damages for alleged conversion of a certificate of deposit. The circuit court found as a fact that the certificate of deposit had been delivered to Dianna, as a payee, at the request of George Blackwell while he was still living. The court, therefore, held there was no conversion and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. The stepmother appeals. We affirm.

In the second case, the four daughters of George Blackwell sued his estate seeking foreclosure of a mortgage which allegedly secured a debt of $15,000 evidenced by a promissory note executed by George during his lifetime. The estate contends the mortgage is invalid because there was no underlying debt to be secured. Without making a finding as to the existence of a debt, the circuit court ordered foreclosure on the ground that the mortgage is under seal. The estate appeals. We reverse and remand.

I.

An action for damages for conversion is an action at law. See Kaplan v. Cavicchia, 107 N.J.Super. 201, 257 A.2d 739 (1969). In an action at law where the appeal is based on alleged errors of fact, if there is any evidence which reasonably supports the findings of fact of the trial court, this Court must affirm the judgment. Fox v. Munnerlyn, 283 S.C. 490, 323 S.E.2d 68 (Ct.App.1984).

It is undisputed that George Blackwell purchased a six-month certificate of deposit for $17,820 in January 1980. The certificate was payable to George, or his wife MoEden, or his daughter Dianna, or his daughter Susan. It was renewed for another six months in July 1980.

During the 1980 Christmas holidays, George's four daughters visited him and MoEden in their home. MoEden alleges that Dianna stole the certificate of deposit during the visit. However, there is testimony that during this period the certificate of deposit was given to Dianna by her older sister Marylyn, who did so at George's request. Dianna cashed the certificate, purchased a new certificate, and regularly remitted the interest payments to George during his life. At the time of trial, the principal was still intact.

As there is evidence reasonably supporting the court's finding that the certificate was delivered to Dianna at the direction of her father, the judgment dismissing the conversion claim must be affirmed.

II.

In September 1975, Marylyn voluntarily conveyed a two-acre tract of land to George. In June 1976, George executed a negotiable promissory note for $15,000 at seven per cent interest payable on demand to the four daughters. He simultaneously executed a mortgage on the two-acre tract to secure the note. The mortgage was under seal, but the note was not. George made no payments of interest or principal during his lifetime. Other than the note, there is no evidence that George owed a debt of $15,000 to his four daughters. There was testimony that the mortgage was given to place the property beyond the reach of George's creditors or to keep it from falling into the hands of MoEden.

In South Carolina, a mortgage is a mere security for a debt. Patterson v. Rabb, 38 S.C. 138, 17 S.E. 463 (1893); Williams v. Lawrence, 194 S.C. 1, 8 S.E.2d 838 (1940). Care must be taken to remember that a security instrument is not a debt; at most it is evidence of a debt. Patterson v. Rabb, supra. A mortgage is different from other instruments in that, in order for it to be a valid instrument, there must be a debt or obligation of the mortgagor for which it is given as security. Williams v. Lawrence, supra. If there is no debt, then there is no valid mortgage. Duckworth v. McKinney, 58 S.C. 418, 36 S.E. 730 (1900). A mortgage given, not to secure a bona fide debt, but to place property beyond the reach of creditors, is null and void. Williams v. Lawrence, supra.

In this case, the circuit court made no finding as to the existence of an underlying debt. Instead, the court held that because the mortgage was under seal, the seal imports a good consideration for the mortgage. Relying on Jackson v. Walters, 246 S.C. 486, 144 S.E.2d 422 (1965), the court concluded there was no need to determine independently of the seal whether the mortgage secured an actual debt.

The trial court's analysis fails to differentiate between the mortgage and the obligation it secures. The reasoning adopted by the circuit court in this case was...