Legendre v. South Carolina Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 07 November 1949
• Docket Number: 16276.
• Parties: LEGENDRE et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

56 S.E.2d 336

215 S.C. 514

LEGENDRE et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION.

No. 16276.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 7, 1949

Whether there has been a gift of realty in any case depends upon the particular facts and courts recognize a difference where question arises on assessment of inheritance taxes and in a contest between parties.

Buist & Buist, Charleston, for appellants.

Claude K. Wingate, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.

OXNER Justice.

This is an appeal from an inheritance tax assessment. The question presented is whether, for the purpose of assessing the South Carolina inheritance tax, the value of an undivided one-half interest in 2157 acres of land in Berkeley County, known as Medway Plantation, should be included as a part of the gross estate of the defendant, Sidney S. Legendre. Exclusive of any interest in this plantation, the gross value of the estate was fixed at the sum of $817,326.04. The South Carolina Tax Commission added to this amount the sum of $86,535.00 representing one-half the value of Medway Plantation, thereby increasing the gross value of the estate to $903,861.04. This addition resulted in an increase of $5132.10 in the inheritance tax assessed against the widow, Mrs. Gertrude S Legendre, to whom any interest which the decedent had in Medway Plantation would have passed under the terms of the residuary clause of his will. Appellants contend that the decedent had no beneficial interest in this property and therefore, the Tax Commission erred in making the addition above mentioned to the value of his gross estate.

During the early part of 1930, shortly after Mr. and Mrs. Legendre were married, they became interested in buying Medway Plantation. Neither was in a financial position to do so. She suggested to her father, who was a man of considerable means, that he should purchase the property for her. In response to this suggestion, her father made her a gift of $100,000.00 to be used in buying the property. On June 19, 1930, a deed was executed which conveyed the property to 'Sidney J. Legendre and Gertrude S. Legendre, their heirs and assigns forever.' After making some repairs which were paid for by Mrs. Legendre, the couple moved to this plantation where they made their home until the death of Mr. Legendre on March 8, 1948. In the affidavit filed with the Tax Commission, Mrs. Legendre stated:

'The title to the property was taken in the names of both my husband and me, but this was done solely because we expected to make it our home, and it seemed to be better to have the property in both names. As between my husband and me, the property was always regarded as being mine. I paid for all repairs and upkeep, and I paid taxes on the property. I was then, and now am, the beneficiary of certain trust funds from which I draw substantial income, and it was this income that I was able to use for the purposes above set out.'

Under the conveyance to Mr. and Mrs. Legendre, they became tenants in common and each acquired an undivided one-half interest in this plantation. Her claim that her husband had no beneficial interest in the property is based on the fact that it was purchased and kept in repair with her funds. The theory is that of resulting trust. 'The general rule is that when real estate is conveyed to one person and the consideration paid by another, it is presumed that the party who pays the purchase money intended a benefit to himself, and accordingly a resulting trust is raised in his behalf. Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122; Dumas v. Carroll et al., 112 S.C. 284, 99 S.E. 801. The presumption, however, may not be in accord with the truth. It may be rebutted and the actual intention shown by parol evidence. Larisey v. Larisey, 93 S.C. 450, 77 S.E. 129. But when the conveyance is taken to a wife or child, or to any other person for whom the purchaser is under legal obligation to provide, no such presumption attaches. On the contrary, the presumption in such case is that the purchase was designed as a gift or advancement to the...