Hendrix v. Hendrix

• Decision Date: 16 May 1985
• Citation: 383 S.E.2d 468,299 S.C. 233
• Parties: Elmer R. HENDRIX, a/k/a Jack Hendrix; Brunson W. Hendrix, Jr.; and Elena Hendrix, as trustees under a written inter vivos trust agreement, dated
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 468

383 S.E.2d 468

299 S.C. 233

Elmer R. HENDRIX, a/k/a Jack Hendrix; Brunson W. Hendrix,

Jr.; and Elena Hendrix, as trustees under a written inter

vivos trust agreement, dated May 16, 1985, by Joel Hendrix,

trustor; and Brunson W. Hendrix, Jr. and Elmer R. Hendrix,

a/k/a Jack Hendrix, as executors under the will of Joel

Hendrix, deceased, dated May 15, 1985, Respondents, v. Brunson W. HENDRIX, III; Joel A. Hendrix, Jr.; Rhonda

Renee Hendrix; Shawn D. Hendrix, (a minor over the age of

14 years); Hela Ratley; Sandra Hendrix Martin Stancells;

Elena Hendrix; Jewell Powell; Rita Hendrix; Carolina

Amusements, Inc.; Marie H. Tolson; Chesley Tolson; Jesse

J. Floyd; Al Shook; Gene Brantley; Harry Baker; Brunson

W. Hendrix, Jr.; and Elmer R. Hendrix, a/k/a Jack Hendrix, Defendants,

Of whom Jesse J. Floyd is the Appellant,

and Rhonda Renee Hendrix is a Respondent.

Appeal of Jesse J. FLOYD.

No. 1385.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard May 8, 1989.

Decided Aug. 14, 1989.

James B. Richardson, Jr., of Richardson & Smith, Columbia, for appellant.

George I. Alley, of Ellison, Quinn, Isaacs & Alley, Fredrick A. Gertz, of Gertz, Kastanes & Moore, both of Columbia, and Henry H. Taylor, of Kirkland, Taylor, Wilson, Moore, Allen & Deneen, West Columbia, for respondents.

SHAW, Judge:

The respondents, heirs of the estate of decedent Joel Hendrix, instituted this declaratory judgment action seeking to impose a constructive trust on five pieces of property titled in the name of appellant Jesse J. Floyd. The trial judge held a constructive trust arose in the properties and held Hendrix owned a fifty percent interest in four of the properties and a one hundred percent interest in the fifth piece of property. Floyd appeals. We reverse.

The dispute between these parties arises over property described as follows: (1) 1619 through 1621 Main Street, Columbia; (2) 1649 Main Street, Columbia--Hennessey's Restaurant; (3) Old Anna House, Ice Cream House--Five Points, Columbia; (4) Old Dominion on Two Notch Road--Warehouse and (5) Barbecue Inn, Dee's Recap--Charleston Highway, West Columbia. Legal title to these properties is held in Floyd's name. However, respondents contend these five properties were owned jointly by Hendrix and Floyd. Floyd denies this, claiming Hendrix held no interest in the disputed properties. The issue before us is whether the evidence supports the finding by the trial judge of a constructive trust. We find it does not and therefore reverse.

An action to declare a constructive trust is one in equity and this court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559 (1987). In order to establish a constructive trust, the evidence must be clear, definite and unequivocal. Id. A constructive trust arises whenever circumstances under which property was acquired make it inequitable that it be retained by the one holding legal title. These circumstances include fraud, bad faith, abuse of confidence, or violation of a fiduciary duty which gives rise to an obligation in equity to make restitution. Id.

Respondents put forth testimony of relatives, friends and the accountant of both Hendrix...