Settlemeyer v. McCluney
| Decision Date | 11 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3796.,3796. |
| Citation | 359 S.C. 317,596 S.E.2d 514 |
| Parties | William SETTLEMEYER, Appellant, v. Katherine McCLUNEY, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Daniel J. Ballou, of Rock Hill; John Pressly Gettys, Jr., of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
George W. Speedy, of Camden, for Respondent.
William Settlemeyer sued his daughter, Katherine McCluney, claiming ownership of four tracts of land in York County ("the properties") by an express, constructive, or resulting trust. The circuit court concluded no trust existed and McCluney was the legal and equitable owner of the properties. Settlemeyer appeals, arguing the circuit court erred by denying relief on his claim for: 1) an express trust; 2) a constructive trust; and 3) a resulting trust. We affirm.
Between March 1982 and January 1991, Settlemeyer purchased the properties. In each instance, he had the title issued in McCluney's name.
Subsequently, Settlemeyer filed a lawsuit, alleging the properties were held in an express, constructive or resulting trust, with McCluney as the trustee and Settlemeyer as the beneficiary.
At trial, Settlemeyer testified he voluntarily placed title of the properties in McCluney's name, admitting McCluney had not induced him to have the properties conveyed to her. Settlemeyer further testified he believed he and McCluney had an oral agreement in which he would purchase property and title it in McCluney's name, with the understanding that McCluney would later convey it to him. However, when specifically asked if there was "ever an agreement between [Settlemeyer] and [McCluney] that she would reconvey the property back to [Settlemeyer]," Settlemeyer stated, Additionally, Settlemeyer admitted he denied ownership of the properties during one of his divorce proceedings and during a Department of Health and Environmental Control investigation of one of the properties.
McCluney denied she and her father had an agreement in which she was to convey the properties to him but confirmed she did not pay the purchase price or property taxes for the properties. McCluney stated she believed the properties were gifts from Settlemeyer. The circuit court found the Statute of Frauds barred finding an express trust existed. Additionally, the circuit court found the claim of a constructive trust failed because Settlemeyer did not prove McCluney acted fraudulently in the transaction. Furthermore, the circuit court found the claim for a resulting trust failed because Settlemeyer failed to rebut the presumption that the properties were given to McCluney as gifts.
Subsequently, in Settlemeyer's motion for reconsideration, Settlemeyer argued the circuit court erred by failing to address his part-performance argument concerning the express trust. Thereafter, the circuit court denied Settlemeyer's motion for reconsideration without addressing part performance. Settlemeyer appeals.
"In an action in equity, tried by the judge alone, ... this Court has jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its views of the preponderance of the evidence." Stackhouse v. Cook, 271 S.C. 518, 521, 248 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1978).
I. Express Trust
Settlemeyer argues the circuit court erred by denying relief on his claim of an express trust. We disagree.
The statute of frauds requires that a declaration of an express trust of land must be in writing. S.C.Code Ann. § 62-7-101 (1987). However, "sufficient part performance of a parol contract for the conveyance of land will remove the contract from the statute of frauds." Stackhouse, 271 S.C. at 521, 248 S.E.2d at 483.
To compel specific performance of an oral agreement where part performance is alleged to remove the contract from the statute of frauds, a court of equity must find: 1) clear evidence of an oral agreement; 2) the agreement had been partially executed; and 3) the party who requested performance had completed or was willing to complete his part of the oral agreement. Gibson v. Hrysikos, 293 S.C. 8, 13-14, 358 S.E.2d 173, 176 (Ct.App.1987). Because both Settlemeyer and McCluney testified no written document existed governing conveyance of the properties between the parties, we only address the issue of part performance.
At trial, McCluney denied an oral agreement existed between the parties in which she was to convey the properties to Settlemeyer. Furthermore, although Settlemeyer testified he thought such an agreement existed between the parties, he stated the parties did not orally express this agreement. Rather, he testified he trusted McCluney to act as he desired.
Based on our review of the evidence contained in the record, we hold Settlemeyer did not present clear evidence of an oral agreement between the parties. See Gibson, 293 S.C. at 13, 358 S.E.2d at 176 ().
Without the existence of an oral agreement, Settlemeyer cannot establish part performance of the alleged agreement. See S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of S.C. v. Episcopal Church
...the results turn on the validity and existence of certain trusts, matters which also sound in equity. E.g., Settlemeyer v. McCluney, 359 S.C. 317, 596 S.E.2d 514 (Ct. App. 2004). Were Acting Justice Toal correct, and were the Court to find the main purpose of this suit were legal, then the ......
- State v. Hill
-
Murrells Inlet Corp. v. Ward, 4384.
...S.E.2d 486, 488 (Ct.App.1999); accord Stackhouse v. Cook, 271 S.C. 518, 521, 248 S.E.2d 482, 484 (1978); Settlemeyer v. McCluney, 359 S.C. 317, 320, 596 S.E.2d 514, 516 (Ct.App.2004); Thomas v. Mitchell, 287 S.C. 35, 37-38, 336 S.E.2d 154, 155 (Ct.App.1985); see also Tupper, 326 S.C. at 323......
-
Gustilo v. Tang
...and 3) the party who requested performance had completed or was willing to complete his part of the oral agreement.” Settlemeyer, 359 S.C. 317, 320, 596 S.E.2d 514, 516 (citing Gibson, 293 S.C. at 13-14, 358 S.E.2d 176). In the present case, the trial court found the Gustilos credible in th......
-
Act 100, SB 143 – Probate Code
...the transferor had a fraudulent purpose for the transfers, and the transferee committed no fraud or deceit. See Settlemeyer v. McCluney, 359 S.C. 317, 596 S.E.2d 514 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004); All v. Prillaman, 200 S.C. 279, 20 S.E.2d 741 (S.C. 1942). "The law will not permit a party to delibera......
-
Act 66, SB 422 – Uniform Trust Code
...the transferor had a fraudulent purpose for the transfers, and the transferee committed no fraud or deceit. See Settlemeyer v. McCluney, 359 S.C. 317, 596 S.E.2d 514 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004); All v. Prillaman, 200 S.C. 279, 20 S.E.2d 741 (S.C. 1942). "The law will not permit a party to delibera......