Dunn v. Miller, 18508

• Decision Date: 27 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 18508,18508
• Citation: 247 S.C. 567,148 S.E.2d 676
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: John DUNN et al., Respondents, v. T. J. MILLER et al., Appellants.

Page 676

148 S.E.2d 676

247 S.C. 567

John DUNN et al., Respondents, v. T. J. MILLER et al., Appellants.

No. 18508.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 27, 1966.

James H. Price, Greenville, for appellants.

George F. Townes, Greenville, for respondents.

MOSS, Chief Justice.

This is a controversy between two unincorporated religious associations concerning the title to land now in the possession of the appellants and upon which improvements have been made by them.

Laws Chapel Church was organized in 1950. It is a Free Will Baptist Church and at the time this action was commenced was a member of the Toe River Association of Free Will Baptist Churches. It has been served by ministers ordained according to the discipline of Missionary Baptist Churches as well as regular Free Will Baptist ministers. It is a very small mountain church and has been unable to consistently find regular Free Will Baptist ministers to serve as pastors. When being served by Missionary Baptist ministers it remained organized according to the faith and discipline of the Free Will Baptist Church. From the latter part of 1958 until November, 1959, services at Laws Chapel Church were conducted by an ordained Missionary Baptist minister. The church, however, remained a Free Will Baptist Church. In February, 1960, Reverend H. B. Snow, an ordained Missionary Baptist minister, began conducting services at Laws Chapel Church.

The church building of Laws Chapel and the lot upon which it is situate is very small, being 20 feet by 30 feet. This particular property is not involved in the controversy. The controversy involves a lot of approximately one acre across the road from the church site, which was conveyed to the Board of Deacons as Trustees of Laws Chapel Church in 1950. This latter lot was used as a cemetery by Laws Chapel Church and the deed contains the following recitation: 'This property being purchased for the use and purpose of a cemetery of the Laws Chapel Church.'

In July, 1960, Reverend Snow obtained a deed signed by Gaither Laws, William C. Laws, John Laws and George Laws, purporting to be trustees and deacons of Laws Chapel Church, conveying the disputed property to the Marietta Second Baptist Church. Thereafter, a church building was erected on the disputed property, which when completed had across its front the name 'Marietta Second Baptist Church'. The named respondents, alleging that they are the true trustees and deacons of Laws Chapel Church, brought this action as trustees and deacons, and individually and representatives of the class of members of Laws Chapel Church, against the named appellants as deacons and trustees of Marietta Second Baptist Church, and as representatives of the class of all members of Marietta Second Baptist Church, to have the said deed set aside as being invalid and that the congregation of Laws Chapel Church be declared the owner of the disputed property. The appellants, by way of answer, alleged the validity of the deed and conduct on the part of the respondents amounting to an estoppel. The matter was referred to the Master in Equity for Greenville County, who, after hearing the testimony and evidence, found that the respondents were estopped to have the deed set aside and recommended that the prayer of the complaint be denied. Exceptions were taken to the Master's report and the matter was heard by The Honorable Frank Eppes, Resident Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, who held that the deed was not valid and that the respondents were not entitled to invoke the law of estoppel. The appellants have now appealed to this Court.

This being an equity case and the factual findings of the Master and the Circuit Judge being in sharp disagreement on the material issues, this Court has jurisdiction to consider the evidence and finding of fact in accordance with our view of the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 244 S.C. 265, 136 S.E.2d 537.

The record contains the testimony of two ministers who preceded Reverend Snow at Laws Chapel Church. One of the ministers served Laws Chapel Church during 1951 and 1952 and the other in 1958 and 1959. The first minister testified that during 1951 and 1952 the deacons of Laws Chapel Church were W. M. Laws, Charlie Laws and Dave Talley, and the trustees of said church were John Dunn, James Peterson and Richard Peterson. The other minister testified that during 1958 and 1959 the trustees were John Dunn, Richard Peterson and Charlie Laws, James Peterson having died. Testimony from other members of the church identified the trustees as John Dunn, Richard Peterson and Charlie Laws, and the deasons as W. M. Laws, Charlie Laws and Ike Story, Story having succeeded Talley.

The parties to the deed testified as to their official position: Gaither Laws testified that he was not a trustee or a deacon of Laws Chapel Church; John Laws testified that he had never been a deacon or trustee; George Laws also denied having ever been a deacon or trustee of the church; and William C. Laws, (also known as W. M. Laws), testified that he was a deacon but had never been a trustee of the church. There is no testimony in the record which states that William C. (W. M.) Laws, John Laws, George Laws and Gaither Laws were ever elected trustees of the church nor is there any testimony that Gaither Laws, John Laws and George Laws were ever elected deacons of the church. The evidence offered by the appellants to contradict the testimony of the witnesses as to the persons who were trustees and deacons of Laws Chapel Church is the disputed deed itself, and the testimony of Reverend H. B. Snow that the four persons who signed the deed represented themselves to be trustees and deacons. The only testimony from Reverend Snow, with regard to his knowledge of who the deacons and trustees of Laws Chapel were, is that the four men who signed the deed told him that they were the deacons and had full authority to dispose of church property, and that he relied on their statements without making further inquiry. Reverend Snow also testified that he did not know whether or not John Laws was a member of the church.

The Circuit Judge found that at the time of the execution of the disputed deed, the trustees of Laws Chapel Church were John Laws, Richard Peterson and Charlie Laws and that its deacons were Ike Story, William Laws and Charlie Laws. We think this conclusion is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of convincing this Court of error in the finding of a Circuit Judge is upon the appellants. Boatwright v. Crosby, 83 S.C. 190, 65 S.E. 174; Watson v. Wall, 239 S.C. 109, 121 S.E.2d 427. The appellants have not met that burden.

It does not appear that a conveyance of the property in question was ever authorized by the congregation of Laws Chapel. The testimony of the respondents is that there was no such authorization. Reverend Snow testified that he did not know whether the congregation had authorized a conveyance of the property. He further testified as follows:

'Q. You believed those four men were a church?

'A. Yes, sir.

'Q. As a Baptist minister do you believe four people can come up and say they are a church and deal with church property?

'A. Yes, sir.'

'Q. You know the deacons and trustees are supposed to have authority from the congregation to make a deed?

'A. They are the congregation.'

'Q. You knew those four men were not all the members of that church?

'A. I do not know how many members they had. They told us they were members, they were trustees and deacons and had authority to give the property away and we accepted what they said.'

'A. I don't know how many members. All I know is those four men said they were members. That is all I know.

'Q. You knew Dick Peterson was a member?

'A. No, sir.

'Q. You didn't know John Dunn was a member of Laws Chapel?

'A. No, sir.

'Q. Didn't you know they had come in the past to Laws Chapel?

'A. I had heard they had been there previous to opening up the mission, but I do not know who was members and who was not members.

'Q. Did you ever try to establish who were the members and who were not members of Laws Chapel Church?

'A. No, sir.'

The record is clear that no one knew of a conveyance of the disputed property except the parties who executed the deed and Reverend Snow until after the deed had been executed. The record is also clear that it was Reverend Snow who attended to the drafting of the deed. We think that in view of the foregoing testimony the trial judge was correct in holding that the deed purporting to convey the disputed property was invalid because it was not made by persons properly authorized by the congregation of Laws Chapel to convey property belonging to it. See Calvary Baptist Church v. Dart, 68 S.C. 221, 47 S.E. 66; Turbeville v. Morris, 203 S.C. 287, 26 S.E.2d 821.

The next question for determination is that of equitable estoppel. In our consideration of the evidence, we bear in mind that the burden of proof is upon the party who asserts an estoppel. Blue Ridge Realty Co. v. Williamson, 247 S.C. 112, 145 S.E.2d 922. In the Blue Ridge Realty case, we said:

'The essential elements of an equitable estoppel as related to the party estopped are: (1) Conduct which amounts to a false representation or concealment of material facts, or, at least, which is calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (2) intention, or at least expectation, that such conduct shall be acted upon by the other party; (3) knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real facts. As related to the party claiming the estoppel, they are: (1) Lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question; (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped; and (3) action based thereon of such a character as to change his position prejudicially. Macaulay v. Howard, 230 S.C....