Trustees of Presbytery of Willamette v. Hammer

Decision Date23 October 1963
Citation235 Or. 564,385 P.2d 1013
PartiesTRUSTEES OF the PRESBYTERY OF WILLAMETTE, Respondent, v. Mrs. Rollie HAMMER, Everett Condit, Addie Caspell, E. L. Crawford, Appellants, The unknown heirs of Cyrenius Condit, and all other persons claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest of the real property described in plaintiff's complaint adverse to plaintiff's ownership or any cloud upon plaintiff's title thereto, Defendants, E. G. Neal, Cross-Appellant.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

E. L. Crawford, Salem, argued the cause for appellants. On the briefs were Crawford & Garrett, Salem.

R. W. Pickell, Salem, argued the cause and submitted a brief for cross-appellant Neal.

Alfred J. Laue, Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Williams & Skopil, Salem.

Before ROSSMAN, J. P., and PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and LUSK, JJ.

O'CONNELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree quieting title and removing a cloud from the title claimed by plaintiff. Defendants assert that the title held by plaintiff is subject to a trust for the maintenance and upkeep of the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church and a contiguous cemetery.

The land in question was conveyed by Cyrenius and Jane Condit to the Trustees of Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church, their successors and assigns forever. The deed contained no statement of trust purposes.

The parol evidence rule presents no impediment to the establishment of a trust where the deed neither affirms nor negates the intention to create a trust. 1 However, defendants must show that at the time the land was conveyed to the Trustees of the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church the grantors intended to create the trust which they now assert was created, i. e., a trust for the maintenance and upkeep of the church and cemetery.

The conveyance to the 'trustees' of the church in this case clearly shows that the trustees were not intended to have a beneficial interest in the property. Although not expressly recited in the deed, the transfer was made for the benefit of the church. In that sense a trust was created. However, a trust in this sense would not require the trustees of the church or their successors to hold the property for specific uses (e. g., cemetery uses) or to use the proceeds for the specific purpose of maintaining the Pleasant Grove church or the cemetery; the church would be free to sell the property if it chose to do so, using the proceeds for any church purpose it saw fit.

To establish a specific trust of the property for the maintenance and upkeep of the Pleasant Grove church and cemetery defendants rely upon an affidavit of Henry B. Condit, an heir of the grantors. The affidavit executed some 45 years after the deed sets forth the affiant's personal knowledge of the conveyance and asserts that the property involved in the present litigation was conveyed expressly in trust, the rents and profits accruing therefrom to be used for the maintenance of the Pleasant Grove church and cemetery.

The affidavit is simply hearsay evidence. Even if it were not, the bare assertion by a third person that the grantor's purpose in making a conveyance was to create a trust would not, in itself, be sufficient to establish the trust. A trust can only be created by the grantors and their intent to do so must be manifested by them prior to or contemporaneously with the conveyance. 2

Moreover, since the subject matter of the alleged trust in this case is land, the Statute of Frauds (ORS 93.020) would require that it be evidenced by a memorandum signed by the grantors prior to or at the time of the transfer. 3 There is no evidence of this character in the present case.

We hold that the land in question was not subject to a specific trust as contended by defendants.

Defendants next argue that there is no proof that title passed from the Trustees of the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church to plaintiff Trustees of the Presbytery of Willamette. The Trustees of the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church took title in their representative capacity on behalf of the church. Whether the title is deemed to have vested in the trustees individually in their representative capacity or to have passed to the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church as an entity is immaterial. In either case the title passed to the plaintiff. At the time the deed was executed to the Trustees of the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church it was an unincorporated association. In 1914 the Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church was incorporated. When a church incorporates it succeeds to the rights of the unincorporated body including the title to land held by church trustees. 4

The incorporated Pleasant Grove Presbyterian Church was later dissolved. At the time it was a member of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Reverend D. Hugh Peniston, pastor of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2011
    ...law in Oregon directly addressing how to resolve disputes over church property. One case comes close. Trustees of the Presbytery of Willamette v. Hammer, 235 Or. 564, 385 P.2d 1013 (1963), involved a dispute between a presbytery and the trustees of a local church that had dissolved. The Tru......
  • Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River v. Presbyterian Church
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 29, 2012
    ...property disputes, the Court of Appeals addressed the few Oregon cases that have grappled with the issue. In Presbytery of Willamette v. Hammer, 235 Or. 564, 385 P.2d 1013 (1963), a case also involving the Presbyterian Church, after a local congregation had dissolved, a regional presbytery ......
  • In re Roman Catholic Arch. of Portland in or., Bankruptcy No. 04-37154 ELP11.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Ninth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Oregon
    • July 20, 2006
    ...at the manifestations of intent made at the time the trust was created, not long afterward. See Trustees of the Presbytery of Willamette v Hammer, 235 Or. 564, 566, 385 P.2d 1013 (1963)(intent to create trust must be manifested before or at time trust created). See also Allen v. Hendrick, 1......
  • Belton v. Buesing
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1965
    ...in our decisions that this is not the rule in Oregon with respect to the creation of a trust. See Trustees of Presbytery of Willamette v. Hammer, 235 Or. 564, 567, 385 P.2d 1013; Chance v. Weston, 96 Or. 390, 395, 190 P. 155; Chance v. Graham, 76 Or. 199, 213, 148 P. But as I view it that q......
  • 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