Court Opinion

ID: 9759839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:29:11.695847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:05.180723
License: Public Domain

P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice, concurring. The majority holds that the charitable trust has not failed and that therefore, the chancellor erroneously ruled that the res of the trust should revert to the grantors. While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I would hold that way for a different reason. I do not think a charitable trust ever existed. Rather, I think the grantor’s entire interest in the property was conveyed by warranty deed in 1913. The property was sold by an instrument entitled “Warranty Deed With Lien and Relinquishment of Dower.’’ It recited that J. L. Mitchell and W. J. Mitchell, his wife: for and in consideration of the sum of $4.00 Four Dollars paid and to be paid by R. C. Chappell, W. C. Cody and S. Smith, commitie, ... do hereby grant, bargain, and sell, unto the said Commity for Church House site, and the Citizens of Rosecreek, and unto. . . heirs and assigns, forever the following lands . . . To have and to hold the same unto the said Committie and unto their Successors and unto his heirs and assigns, forever, with all appurtenances thereunto belonging. And we hereby covenant with the said Commitie that we will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands against all lawful claims whatsoever and lands are free from all liens and incumbrances. It being hereby expressly understood that a lien is hereby retained upon said lot or parcel of land to secure the payment of residue of the purchase money he*nbefore mentioned. And I, J. L. Mighell, wife of the said M. J. Mitchell, for and in consideration of the said sum of money, do hereby release and relinquish unto the said Commitie, all my right of dower and homestead in and to said lands. This is nothing more than a warranty deed, selling the described property to the committee to build a church for the sum of four dollars. There is no mention of how long the property must be used as a church or what happens if it is not. To the contrary, the deed says the grantors do “grant, bargain and sell” to the committee members and their heirs and assigns “forever.” The only interest retained by the grantor was in the nature of a lien until the purchase price was fully paid. To establish a charitable trust, the donor first must make a gift of something for a charitable purpose. 15 Am Jur 2d Charities § 6 (1976). Here, the grantor sold his property. He did not give it to the committee. Another distinguishing feature of any type of trust is that it involves a separation of equitable interest and legal title. 76 Am Jur 2d Trusts § 5 (1975). Here, the entire interest held by the grantor was conveyed to the grantee with this warranty deed. Since no trust existed, it is irrelevant whether or not the property is still being used as a church. I would reverse for the reasons stated above. Smith, George Rose, J., joins in this concurrence.