Opinion ID: 1320184
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Property Ownership

Text: Turning to the 2000 Action, the trial court held that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remained valid and that legal title is held by the unknown heirs of George Pawley and William Poole while the beneficial title is held by the Inhabit ants of Waccamaw Neck. We disagree. Based upon an application of the relevant neutral principles of law, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed remains valid. Further, we hold that this trust was executed by the Statute of Uses and that title to the property is held by the congregational corporate entityAll Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
It is well established that where there is a conveyance to one for the use of another, and the trustee is charged with no duty which renders it necessary that the legal estate should remain in him to enable him properly to perform such duty, the Statute of Uses executes the use and carries the legal title to the [beneficial] use. Faber v. Police, 10 S.C. 376, 389-90 (1877). [11] Further, in a trust where the trustees have no duties, the legal and equitable titles are merged in the beneficiaries and the beneficial use is converted into legal ownership. Johnson v. Thornton, 264 S.C. 252, 257, 214 S.E.2d 124, 127 (1975). Nonetheless, the Statute of Uses will not operate to execute a trust where there is no beneficiary capable of taking legal title. See Bowen v. Humphreys, 24 S.C. 452, 455 (1886) (holding that the Statute of Uses cannot execute a trust where there is no identifiable beneficiary capable of holding title). Therefore, there are two questions that must be asked in order to determine if the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed was executed by the Statute of Uses: (1) whether the trustees had any duties relative to their office, and (2) whether there is a beneficiary capable of taking title. We hold that the trustees of this trust did not have any duties relative to their office and that the congregation of All Saints Parish was the intended beneficiary and, upon its formation, was clearly capable of taking title.
We hold that the 1745 Trust Deed did not impose any duties upon the trustees, George Pawley and William Poole. Pawley and Poole were colonial appointees given the authority to accept conveyances of land for the purpose of establishing parishes. When named trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed, they were acting as appointees of the colony, not as trustees with traditional duties. This conclusion is supported by the relevant legal realities of that time. The court of appeals in All Saints correctly stated that in colonial times, churches could not be recognized by the government until they owned property, and they could not own property until they had been officially recognized. All Saints, 358 S.C. at 225, 595 S.E.2d at 262. As such, a colonial practice arose in which a settlor placed property in trust for a congregation until such a time as the government recognized the church. Id. (citing Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 U.S. (Cranch) 292, 330, 3 L.Ed. 735 (1815) (holding no parish church ... could have legal existence until consecration and consecration was expressly inhibited unless a suitable endowment of land.)). Pawley and Poole did not have any duties relative to the trust, but simply acted as custodians of the property at issue until All Saints Parish was officially established. This conclusion is supported by language of the 1745 Trust Deed which did not expressly impose any duties upon them, nor is there any evidence in the record which suggests that either of the trustees performed any acts relative to their office as trustee. Further, Percival and Ann Pawley were not traditional settlors of a trust. Rather, they sold the property at a price far above nominal value. They were clearly sellers of property to colonially appointed commissioners for the establishment of a parish, purposes specified by the colonial government.
Holding that the trustees to the 1745 Trust Deed had no duties, we now analyze whether there was a beneficiary capable of taking title. According to the terms of the 1745 Trust Deed, the beneficiaries were the Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck. This term is ambiguous and parol evidence should be used to ascertain its meaning. See Shelley v. Shelley, 244 S.C. 598, 606, 137 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1964)(holding that parol evidence is admissible so long as its admission is merely intended to explain and apply what the settlor has written). Based on the following application of parol evidence, we hold that the term Inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck was used by the settlors of the trust as an expression referring to the yet-to-be-created All Saints Parish. Early South Carolina colonial statutes used the term inhabitants when referring to the colony's parishes. For instance, The Church Act of 1706 contains multiple uses of the term inhabitants referring to parishes. See Act No. 256 at §§ 7, 10, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 35, 2 S.C. Stat. 284-89 (1706). Additionally, this understanding of the term is supported by the historical context in which the 1745 Trust Deed was executed. In 1745, the inhabitants of Waccamaw Neck were parishioners of Prince George's Parish. They were clamoring for the establishment of their own Parish congregation and had already been worshipping on the land at issue for approximately eight years. It was within this historical context that the 1745 Trust Deed was executed in expectation that the subject property would be for the benefit of the yet-to-be formed All Saints Parish. Additionally, according to the express terms of the original Church Act of 1706, a colonial Parish could hold title to land. The Act specifically empowered commissioners to take up by grant from the Lords Proprietors, or purchase the same for them, or any other person, and have, taken and receive so much land as they think necessary for the several sites of the several churches. Act No. 256 at § 8, 2 S.C. Stat. 284. Thus, when the Church Act of 1767 formed All Saints Parish, the Statute of Uses operated to execute the trust created by the 1745 Trust Deed and title vested in the intended beneficiary, the congregation of All Saints Parish.
Moreover, the 1903 Quit-Claim Deed makes clear that All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. holds title to its property. The All Saints Parish congregation was officially incorporated in 1820. In 1902, due to doubt over the status of the congregation's incorporation, the Diocese directed it to re-incorporate as All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. Shortly thereafter, in order to settle any doubt as to the status of title to Parish property, the Diocese voluntarily executed the 1903 Quit-Claim deed. The 1903 Quit-Claim Deed makes clear that title to the property at issue is currently held by the congregation's corporate entityAll Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc.
Furthermore, we hold that neither the 2000 Notice nor the Dennis Canon has any legal effect on title to the All Saints congregation's property. A trust may be created by either declaration of trust or by transfer of property .... Dreher v. Dreher, 370 S.C. 75, 80, 634 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2006). It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another. The Diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 Notice, have any interest in the congregation's property. Therefore, the recordation of the 2000 Notice could not have created a trust over the property. For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that title to the property at issue is held by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., the Dennis Canons had no legal effect on the title to the congregation's property, and the 2000 Notice should be removed from the Georgetown County records.