Lollis v. Lollis, No. 22696

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGREGORY; NESS
Citation354 S.E.2d 559,291 S.C. 525
PartiesLoretta Rose LOLLIS, Respondent, v. Walter Lloyd LOLLIS and Rachel Eugenia Lollis, Executrix of the Estate of S.B. Lollis, Appellants. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 22696
Decision Date10 March 1987

Page 559

354 S.E.2d 559
291 S.C. 525
Loretta Rose LOLLIS, Respondent,
v.
Walter Lloyd LOLLIS and Rachel Eugenia Lollis, Executrix of
the Estate of S.B. Lollis, Appellants.
No. 22696.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard March 10, 1987.
Decided April 6, 1987.

Page 560

[291 S.C. 527] Harold R. Lowery and William C. Hood, Anderson, for appellants.

Jack F. McIntosh, Anderson, for respondent.

GREGORY, Judge:

Respondent Loretta Lollis brought this action to impress a trust on real property allegedly purchased with her funds and conveyed by her former husband, appellant Walter Lollis, to his father, appellant S.B. Lollis. After a trial without a jury, the Circuit Court ordered that the property be sold and Loretta be paid $5,800 plus interest from the proceeds. We reverse.

Loretta married for the first time when she was fourteen years old. After her first husband was killed in an accident, she married Walter. While married to Walter, Loretta received $10,000 in settlement of a claim for her first husband's wrongful death. Walter's mother Eugenia was appointed Loretta's guardian to manage these funds. While Eugenia was guardian, the funds remained undepleted. At the age of twenty, Loretta signed a written consent terminating Eugenia's guardianship and acknowledging receipt of over $9,000 from the estate.

The record indicates that after termination of Eugenia's guardianship, a withdrawal was made from the estate bank account for $8,146.25. A bank check in the same amount was issued payable to Eugenia and S.B. Lollis on the same date. This check was endorsed and deposited in an account owned by them. The property in question was purchased the next day with S.B.'s personal check for $5,600 representing the balance of the $5,800 purchase price.

After the parties divorced, Loretta commenced this action to impress a trust on the property. At trial, she denied that [291 S.C. 528] she had received the money from the estate. She claimed that S.B. used $5,800 of her money to purchase the property and that he executed the deed in her husband Walter's name. She alleged the property was later conveyed from Walter to S.B. for Loretta's "security" while Walter served time in jail.

S.B., on the other hand, testified that he received the check for $8,146.25 from Walter and Loretta in repayment for loans he made to them during their marriage that totaled over $10,000. He claimed he purchased the property as a gift for them and its subsequent conveyance to him from Walter was in exchange for another loan of $6,500. S.B. was never repaid for this loan. Walter corroborated this testimony and added that Loretta had agreed to give the $8,146.25 to his father in repayment of their past loans.

The Circuit Court found the property was purchased with Loretta's funds for her benefit and impressed a trust in the amount of the purchase price. Appellants contend there is insufficient evidence to support the imposition of a resulting trust or a constructive trust and that an express trust could not be proved by parol evidence.

While trusts arising...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C. v. Episcopal Church, Appellate Case No. 2015-000622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 2, 2017
    ...under which property was acquired make it inequitable that it should be retained by the one holding the legal title." Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 529, 354 S.E.2d 559, 561 (1987). The impetus to impose a constructive trust "results from fraud, bad faith, abuse of confidence, or violation......
  • In re Derivium Capital, LLC, Civil Action No. 05-15042-JW
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
    • December 22, 2006
    ...gives rise to an obligation in equity to make restitution. Searson v. Webb, 208 S.C. 453, 38 S.E.2d 654 (1946), cited in Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559 (1987). . . . Where a party obtains legal title to property which he is not equitably entitled to retain against another wh......
  • Wellin v. Wellin, No. 2:14–cv–4067–DCN
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 2015
    ...and quotation marks 135 F.Supp.3d 526omitted). "Fraud is an essential element, although it need not be actual fraud." Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559, 561 (1987).As detailed in the background discussion above, the Wellin children have identified specific misconduct by Wendy, ......
  • Smith v. South Carolina Retirement System, No. 3025.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 6, 1999
    ...Fraud is usually an element essential to the establishment of a constructive trust; though, it need not be actual fraud. Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559 (1987); McNair, supra. Finally, the evidence must be clear and convincing to support its imposition. SSI Medical Servs., In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C. v. Episcopal Church, Appellate Case No. 2015-000622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 2, 2017
    ...under which property was acquired make it inequitable that it should be retained by the one holding the legal title." Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 529, 354 S.E.2d 559, 561 (1987). The impetus to impose a constructive trust "results from fraud, bad faith, abuse of confidence, or violation......
  • In re Derivium Capital, LLC, Civil Action No. 05-15042-JW
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
    • December 22, 2006
    ...gives rise to an obligation in equity to make restitution. Searson v. Webb, 208 S.C. 453, 38 S.E.2d 654 (1946), cited in Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559 (1987). . . . Where a party obtains legal title to property which he is not equitably entitled to retain against another wh......
  • Wellin v. Wellin, No. 2:14–cv–4067–DCN
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 2015
    ...and quotation marks 135 F.Supp.3d 526omitted). "Fraud is an essential element, although it need not be actual fraud." Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559, 561 (1987).As detailed in the background discussion above, the Wellin children have identified specific misconduct by Wendy, ......
  • Smith v. South Carolina Retirement System, No. 3025.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 6, 1999
    ...Fraud is usually an element essential to the establishment of a constructive trust; though, it need not be actual fraud. Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525, 354 S.E.2d 559 (1987); McNair, supra. Finally, the evidence must be clear and convincing to support its imposition. SSI Medical Servs., In......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT