Davis v. Monteith, 22587

• Decision Date: 25 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 22587,22587
• Citation: 345 S.E.2d 724,289 S.C. 176
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 33 Ed. Law Rep. 890 L.H. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellant, v. H.D. MONTEITH and The Honorables Barbara Scott, Chairperson, Rev. William McKinley Bowman; Linda Smolen; Alma W. Byrd; Robert R. Heyward, III; Isaac McGraw; and Samuel McGregor, as School District One; and the Commissioners of School District One; and all persons who may have some right, title, interest, or estate or lien upon the real estate described in the Complaint whether as a class John Doe, or others, as minors or non sui juris, under a disability of any sort, the patrons, parents, teachers, pupils, or friends entitled to use of such property for education, religious, or other purposes as a class Richard Roe, and entitled to claim under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, and any amendments thereto, and South Carolina Employment Security Commission, Defendants, of Whom H.D. Monteith is Appellant-Respondent, and School District One is Respondent. . Heard

Page 724

345 S.E.2d 724

289 S.C. 176, 33 Ed. Law Rep. 890

L.H. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellant, v. H.D. MONTEITH and The Honorables Barbara Scott, Chairperson Rev. William McKinley Bowman; Linda Smolen; Alma W. Byrd Robert R. Heyward, III; Isaac McGraw; and Samuel McGregor as School District One; and the Commissioners of School District One; and all persons who may have some right title, interest, or estate or lien upon the real estate described in the Complaint whether as a class John Doe, or others, as minors or non sui juris, under a disability of any sort, the patrons, parents, teachers, pupils, or friends entitled to use of such property for education, religious, or other purposes as a class Richard Roe, and entitled to claim under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940, and any amendments thereto, and South Carolina Employment Security Commission, Defendants, of Whom H.D. Monteith is Appellant-Respondent, and School District One is Respondent.

No. 22587.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Feb. 25, 1986.

Decided June 30, 1986.

J. Reese Daniel, Columbia, for appellant-respondent.

Jack F. McGuinn, Columbia, for respondent-appellant.

Francenia B. Heizer, Columbia, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice.

This is an appeal by both the Appellant-Respondent (Monteith) and the Respondent-Appellant (Davis) from a final order of the Master in Equity, setting aside a deed of property to Monteith, and granting Davis an equitable interest and right to purchase the property at fair market value. We affirm in part and reverse in part, concluding that Monteith is the legal title owner of the property.

On December 12, 1949, Davis entered into a contract of sale with the Respondent (School District One) to purchase three (3) acres of land (known as the old Monteith School property) for three thousand ($3000.00) dollars. Davis paid one hundred ($100.00) dollars earnest money on the contract date and the balance of two thousand nine hundred ($2,900.00) dollars was due within thirty (30) days.

The parties agree that they are bound by and subject to the orders issued on August 1, 1950, and February 14, 1951, by the Honorable Harry M. Lightsey, Master in Equity, involving the same tract of land and parties to this action. The orders provide that any conveyance of the property in question would be subject to the limitation that the property be used only for school, religious and educational purposes, or the property would revert back to the School District.

It is undisputed that Davis has used the property for an automobile parts business since 1950, in clear violation of the restrictions placed on the property. Between 1950 and May of 1976, Davis did not tender the two thousand nine hundred ($2,900.00) dollar balance owing on the contract and the School District never issued Davis a deed to the property.

On December 15, 1975, the attorney for School District One wrote a letter to the School District advising that the one hundred ($100.00) dollars earnest money should be returned to Davis, unless he agreed to the restrictive covenant on the property or the Monteith family released the covenant. By letter dated April 19, 1976, Davis was advised by the School District that it could not sell the property to him for the purpose for which he intended to use the property, and he was to vacate the premises by July 31, 1976.

On May 13, 1976, Davis mailed a check to the real estate agent for the School District in the amount of two thousand nine hundred ($2,900.00) dollars, representing the balance owed on the contract. Davis' attorney also wrote the attorney for the School District on the same date indicating Davis was willing to accept a quit claim deed to the property, subject to the conditions, restrictions and limitations on record at the Register of Mesne Conveyance (RMC) office for Richland County.

By quit claim deed dated March 25, 1981, and filed in the RMC office for Richland County on April 2, 1981, the School District sold the property to Monteith for consideration in the amount of seven thousand ($7,000.00) dollars. Monteith's attorney wrote Davis on May 26, 1981, informing him of the sale and giving Davis the option of leasing the property or vacating it by July 1, 1981. The School District returned to Davis on or about July 23, 1981, the one hundred ($100.00) dollars earnest money and the cashier's check for two thousand nine hundred ($2,900.00) dollars he had paid on the property.

Davis alleges the trial judge erred in finding he did not have legal title to the property by operation of the doctrine of adverse possession. We disagree. The court correctly held that adverse possession does not run against the state or its duly constituted political subdivisions. Harlock v. Jackson, 5 S.C.L. (3 Brev.) 254 (1812); 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession, Section 206; 55 A.L.R.2d 578.

In addition, Davis' claim of adverse possession fails because an essential element of adverse possession is lacking. To constitute adverse possession, the possession must be continuous, hostile, open, actual, notorious and exclusive for the entire ten (10) year statutory period. Lusk, et al., v. Callaham, 287 S.C. 459, 339 S.E.2d 156 (Ct.App.1986); Gregg v. Moore, 226 S.C. 366, 85 S.E.2d 279 (1954). Davis has the burden of proving adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. Lusk, et al., 339 S.E.2d at 157. There is no evidence in the record that Davis' possession of the property was hostile prior to 1976. Davis used the property until 1976 with the knowledge and tacit permission of the School District. To invoke adverse possession, the possession must be adverse and not permissive. Lusk, et al., 339 S.E.2d at 158; Frady v. Ivestor, 118 S.C. 195, 110 S.E. 135 (1921). The continued possession of the property by Davis after being advised by the School Board to vacate the premises in 1976 could possibly be adverse, but adverse possession cannot be asserted because the ten (10) year statutory period had not yet run.

Davis next contends the court erred in concluding he had no legal rights under the 1949 contract with the School District because he failed to tender the balance owing on the contract within thirty (30) days. The evidence reveals Davis sought legal assistance from...