Millvale Plantation, LLC v. Carrison Family Ltd.

• Decision Date: 31 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 5045.,5045.
• Citation: 401 S.C. 166,736 S.E.2d 286
• Parties: MILLVALE PLANTATION, LLC, Respondent, v. CARRISON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Mary H. Carrison, Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2011–190727.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

401 S.C. 166

736 S.E.2d 286

MILLVALE PLANTATION, LLC, Respondent,

v. CARRISON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and Mary H. Carrison, Appellants.Appellate Case No. 2011–190727.

No. 5045.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Sept. 11, 2012.

Decided Oct. 31, 2012.

Robert J. Sheheen, of Savage Royall & Sheheen, of Camden, for Appellants.

W. Duvall Spruill, of Turner Padget Graham & Laney, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.

LOCKEMY, J.

The Carrison Family Limited Partnership (the Carrison Partnership) and Mary H. Carrison (collectively Appellants) appeal the circuit court's award of a 50.72–acre tract of land to Millvale Plantation, LLC (Respondent), arguing the circuit court erred in (1) construing the deed at issue; (2) finding Appellants failed to prove their trespass to try title claim; and (3) finding Appellants failed to prove their adverse possession claim. We affirm the circuit court.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1992, James L. Haynsworth Sr. (Brother) and Mary H. Carrison (Sister) acquired title to approximately six hundred acres of land (the property) in Sumter County. The property was leased by a hunting club, and Brother and Sister split the lease fees. In 1994, Brother and Sister agreed to divide the property between them, and each party executed and delivered a deed (1994 deeds) to the other party conveying their undivided one-half interest in the property.

The deed from Sister to Brother conveyed the tract of land “shown as that portion of Tract B lying to the north of SC Highway 43–109 ..., containing a total of 291 acres, more or less....” The 291 acres conveyed to Brother were comprised of four parcels, described in the deed as:

+--------------------------------------------------+
                ¦67 acres        ¦Map 88, Lot 10  ¦XE5–E–5         ¦
                +----------------+----------------+----------------¦
                ¦133.9 acres     ¦Map 88, Lot 12  ¦XE5–E–20        ¦
                +----------------+----------------+----------------¦
                ¦15.1 acres      ¦Map 88, Lot 15  ¦Part of XE5–E–20¦
                +----------------+----------------+----------------¦
                ¦75 acres        ¦Map 88, Lot 11  ¦XE5–E–1         ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+
                

The deed from Brother to Sister conveyed the tract of land “shown as being all of Tract A and that portion of Tract B lying to the south of SC Highway 43–109 containing a total of 309.7 acres, more or less....” The 309.7 acres conveyed to Sister were comprised of four parcels, described in the deed as:

+--------------------------------------------+
                ¦51 acres      ¦Map 79, Lot 5 ¦XE5–B–6A      ¦
                +--------------+--------------+--------------¦
                ¦144 acres     ¦Map 79, Lot 6 ¦XE5–B–6       ¦
                +--------------+--------------+--------------¦
                ¦92 acres      ¦Map 89, Lot 13¦XE5–F–6       ¦
                +--------------+--------------+--------------¦
                ¦22.7 acres    ¦Map 89, Lot 12¦XF4–C–1       ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+
                

Following the 1994 division, Brother and Sister continued to lease the property as a whole to the hunting club. In October 1995, Sister delivered a quit-claim deed to Brother deeding back fifty-one acres lying north of Highway 43–109, which had been mistakenly transferred to Sister as part of the 144–acre parcel described in the 1994 deed from Brother to Sister. The quit-claim deed stated Sister's net acreage was reduced from 309.7 acres to 258.7 acres.

In 1998, Brother conveyed the majority of his portion of the property to a family trust. In 2008, following Brother's death, the sole surviving trustee conveyed the trust property to Millvale Plantation, LLC (Respondent). In 1998, Sister transferred the property she received in the 1994 division to the Carrison Partnership.

In 2009, Respondent brought an action to quiet title to a disputed 50.72–acre tract (disputed tract) of the property lying south of Highway 43–109. Respondent claimed ownership of the disputed tract, arguing it was part of the 133.9–acre parcel referenced in the deed from Sister to Brother. Appellants asserted counterclaims for trespass to try title and adverse possession. A non-jury trial was held in the circuit court in 2010.

Attorney Frank Robinson, who represented Respondent in connection with the 2008 conveyance of Brother's property, testified he believed the disputed tract had been properly deeded to Brother in 1994. Robinson testified he discovered a discrepancy in the language of the 1994 deed from Sister to Brother during his title examination. Although the 1994 deed stated Sister was conveying the tract of land which was part “of Tract B lying to the north of Highway 43–109,” the disputed 50.72–acre tract was a portion of the 133.9–acre tract conveyed to Brother and was actually located south of SC Highway 43–109. According to Robinson, the fact that the disputed tract was south of Highway 43–109 and yet was included in the specific property description in the deed led him to request a new survey and property boundary plat. The new plat, as well as the tax maps, reflected that the disputed tract was part of the 133.9–acre tract, which was located on both sides of Highway 43–109.¹ Robinson also testified the 1995 quit-claim deed evidenced Sister's intent to convey the disputed tract to Brother in 1994. In the quit-claim deed, Sister stated she should have only received 258.7 acres in the 1994 conveyance and not 309.7 acres. Robinson testified the only way Sister could have 258.7 acres was if she did not own the 50.72–acre disputed tract. Thus, according to Robinson, the quit-claim deed affirmed his conclusion that Sister intended to convey the disputed tract to Brother.

James Carr, an employee of the Sumter County Tax Assessor's office, testified the Tax Assessor's office had assessed taxes from 1994 to 2008 to Brother as the owner of the disputed tract. Carr explained he noticed the reference to Highway 43–109 in the 1994 deed and took it into consideration, but ultimately his decision to assess taxes to Brother for the disputed tract was based on the specific property descriptions in the 1994 deed referencing the tax maps. According to Robinson, Brother paid the taxes on the disputed property. Additionally, Sister testified she intended to transfer all of her property to the Carrison Partnership in 1998.

However, Carr explained the disputed tract was not included in the 1998 deed conveying Sister's property.

James LaFrage, Jr., a forester who managed the property prior to and following the 1994 division, testified timber was cut from Brother's and Sister's tracts in 1999 and from 2004 to 2005. According to LaFrage, it was possible loggers were cutting timber on the north and south sides of Highway 43–109 at the same time. LaFrage testified Brother and Sister would have each received checks from the same timber company, and he believed Brother would have known Sister was getting paid for cutting on the disputed tract based on the settlement sheets attached to the timber company checks. The timber deeds in evidence failed to identify ownership of the disputed tract. Additionally, LaFrage testified he had never seen the 1994 deeds, the 1995 quit-claim deed, or the tax maps.

Sister testified she owned the disputed tract. She acknowledged she and Brother never had any disagreement about the ownership or use of the disputed tract. Furthermore, Sister testified she never told Brother not to come onto the disputed tract. According to Sister, she was not aware Brother was paying taxes on the disputed tract, and she believed she was receiving the tax bill as part of several others that arrived yearly.

Following trial, the circuit court issued an order in February 2011 finding the 1994 deeds were not ambiguous and determining Sister intended to convey the disputed tract to Brother. Additionally, the circuit court found Appellants' counterclaims for trespass to try title and adverse possession failed for lack of evidentiary support. Subsequently, the circuit court denied Appellants' motion to reconsider. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An action to quiet title to property is an action in equity. Jones v. Leagan, 384 S.C. 1, 10, 681 S.E.2d 6, 11 (Ct.App.2009). “In an equitable action tried without a jury, the appellate court can correct errors of law and may find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Church v. McGee, 391 S.C. 334, 342, 705 S.E.2d 481, 485 (Ct.App.2011). “Our equitable standard of review does not require this court to ignore the findings of the trial judge who heard the witnesses.” Id. at 343, 705 S.E.2d at 485. “Decisions relative to the veracity and credibility of witnesses can best be made by the trial judge who heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor.” Id. at 343, 705 S.E.2d at 485–86.

Here, Appellants have asserted counterclaims of trespass to try title and adverse possession. Adverse possession and trespass to try title claims are actions at law. See Frazier v. Smallseed, 384 S.C. 56, 61, 682 S.E.2d 8, 11 (Ct.App.2009) (holding an adverse possession claim is an action at law); Knox v. Bogan, 322 S.C. 64, 66, 472 S.E.2d 43, 45 (Ct.App.1996) (holding an action in trespass to try title is an action at law). In actions at law tried by a judge without a jury, the findings of fact of the judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports them. Townes Assocs. Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976).

LAW/ANALYSISI. 1994 Deed

Appellants argue the circuit court erred in finding the 1994 deed from Sister to Brother conveyed the disputed tract to Brother. We disagree.

“In construing a deed, the intention of the grantor must be ascertained and effectuated, unless that intention contravenes some well settled rule of law or public policy.” K & A Acquisition Grp., LLC v. Island Pointe, LLC, 383 S.C. 563, 682 S.E.2d 252, 262 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In determining the grantor's intent, the deed must be construed as a whole and effect given to every part if...