Whitmire v. Adams, 21013

• Decision Date: 26 July 1979
• Docket Number: No. 21013,21013
• Citation: 257 S.E.2d 160,273 S.C. 453
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: J. J. WHITMIRE, as Trustee and Member of the Joanna Revival Center, Inc., Appellant, v. Vinson ADAMS, Dan Gunter, Sr., and W. F. Boisky, as Trustees of the Joanna Assembly of God of Joanna, South Carolina, Respondents.

Page 160

257 S.E.2d 160

273 S.C. 453

J. J. WHITMIRE, as Trustee and Member of the Joanna Revival

Center, Inc., Appellant, v. Vinson ADAMS, Dan Gunter, Sr., and W. F. Boisky, as Trustees

of the Joanna Assembly of God of Joanna, South

Carolina, Respondents.

No. 21013.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 26, 1979.

Thomas H. Pope, III, of Pope & Schumpert, Newberry, for appellant.

Thomas A. Babb, of Babb & Babb, Laurens, for respondents.

RHODES, Justice:

This class action is brought for the rescission of certain deeds from the Trustees of the Joanna Revival Center, an eleemosynary corporation chartered for religious purposes by the State of South Carolina, to the Trustees of the Joanna Assemble of God. The basis asserted for the action is that the conveyances were obtained by fraudulent representations and that the Joanna Assembly of God, therefore, holds title to the property as constructive trustee for the Joanna Revival Center. The answer of the defendants admitted that these properties were conveyed, but generally denied the remaining allegations. The defendants further entered a counterclaim asserting that the name "Joanna Revival Center" was the property of the defendants. The matter was heard by a Special Referee, who found against all relief sought by the plaintiff-appellant. The order of the Circuit Judge confirmed the Report of the Special Referee, from which order this appeal is taken. We affirm.

The Joanna Revival Center was organized in 1957 by 67 former members of the Pentacostal Holiness Church, who were dissatisfied with the absence of local church autonomy in that organization. The group conducted services in an abandoned theater for the first eighteen months. Although the church in its beginning was not affiliated with any denomination, the first pastor of the congregation became affiliated with the Assemblies of God in 1958 and retained such status during the remainder of the period of his pastorate, which terminated in 1965. Religious literature published by the General Council of the Assemblies of God was used in the various church programs even before the affiliation with that body. Through the contributions of members and a ten-year bank loan, which was co-signed by several charter members including the pastor, a church sanctuary was completed in 1958. In due time, the bank loan was paid off by contributions from the congregation. It is this property that is the subject of the present dispute.

In 1961 the congregation voted to affiliate with the General Council of the Assemblies of God. The church minutes reflect the passage of the motion with the notation that the group could keep its charter (Joanna Revival Center) and that if they became dissatisfied with the Assemblies of God, they could "go back as Joanna Revival Center." Although the charter of Joanna Revival Center remained displayed in the church vestibule until 1966, the sign on the outside of the church was changed to "Joanna Assembly of God" immediately after the vote in 1961, and this is the name under which the church continues to operate.

In 1966 the congregation, by a vote of 24 to 6, authorized the transfer of title to the church's real estate from the Trustees of Joanna Revival Center to the Trustees of Joanna Assembly of God. This action was later consummated by properly executed and recorded deeds of conveyance. The deeds reflect that the trustees conveying the property from the Joanna Revival Center are the same individuals receiving the property as Trustees of Joanna Assembly of God. The resolution accompanying the deed recites the 1961 change of name of the church, its affiliation with the General Council of the Assemblies of God, and the desire to have title to the property be made consistent with such prior action. There is testimony to the effect that the District Superintendent of the Assemblies of God and the local minister told the congregation at the time this vote was taken that the church real estate was being held "illegally" by the Trustees of Joanna Revival Center.

At the time this vote was taken, August 26, 1966, the rules originally adopted by the Joanna Revival Center were in force, and the appellant has taken issue with the failure to literally comply with Rule 9 thereof, which provides that any decision of the church "shall be determined by a majority of those who support the church." The record indicates that no inquiry was made of the membership prior to the vote as to whether they "support(ed) the church." The term "support the church" is susceptible of a host of interpretations. Does it mean financial support, doctrinal support, or support of the church through attendance? If it means any one or all of these, to what degree must such support be forthcoming in order to qualify a member to vote? While there are objective aspects to supporting the church, these are secondary to the theological aspects. Answers to these questions obviously involve inquiring into ecclesiastical matters, which our court has consistently declined to do. The case of Morris Street Baptist Church v. Dart, 67 S.C. 338, 45 S.E. 753 (1903) was concerned with whether or not a minister had been discharged. A key issue was the propriety of a vote to discharge him. The Court stated:

Neither will the court, as a civil tribunal, undertake to determine whether the resolution . . . was passed in accordance with the canon law of the church, except in so far as may be necessary to do so in determining whether it was in fact the church that acted.

Id. 45 S.E. at 754.

It is undisputed that all who voted were members of the church and that there was no objection by any of the congregation to the voting procedure. We find the vote in question represented the proper will of the congregation, and that there is no merit in this exception.

In support of his claim to a constructive trust, the appellant alleges fraud, both actual and constructive, against the respondents, and wrongful conduct in the following particulars:

(1) the statements to the congregation by the District Superintendent and local pastor that the church property was being held "illegally" by the Joanna Revival Center;

(2) the failure to abide by the Joanna Revival Center rules in conducting the vote to transfer the property;

(3) the representation in 1961, when the Joanna Revival Center affiliated with the Church of God, that the property would continue in the Center's name.

A constructive trust is distinguished from an express trust in that the former arises entirely by operation of law without reference to any actual or supposed intention of creating a trust. It is resorted to by equity to vindicate right and justice or frustrate fraud. All v. Prillaman, 200 S.C. 279, 20 S.E.2d 741 (1942). Generally, fraud is an essential element, but it need not be actual fraud. The case of Bank of Williston v. Alderman, 106 S.C. 386, 91 S.E. 296, 298 (1917) states: "Actual fraud is not necessary, but such trust will arise whenever the circumstances under which property was acquired make it inequitable that it should be retained by him who holds the legal title." See also Dominick v. Rhodes, 202 S.C. 139, 24 S.E.2d 168 (1943).

...