Surasky v. Weintraub

21 Citing cases

  1. Green v. Green

    237 S.C. 424 (S.C. 1960)   Cited 27 times

    Messrs. Leatherwood, Walker, Todd Mann, of Greenville, for Appellant, cite: As to the evidence in this case notbeing competent, clear, definite, unequivocal, satisfactory andconvincing as is required to establish a resulting trust: 56 S.C. 78, 34 S.E. 22; 80 S.C. 30, 61 S.E. 200; 200 S.C. 279, 20 S.E.2d 741. As to rule that for a resulting trustto arise the trust must be co-equal with the deed, and cannotarise from subsequent transactions: 23 S.C. 251; 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029; 187 S.C. 36, 196 S.E. 369; 78 S.C. 490, 59 S.E. 535; 52 S.C. 472, 30 S.E. 602. As to the circumstancesin this case tending to show a gift rather than aresulting trust: 118 S.C. 342, 110 S.E. 798; 215 S.C. 514, 56 S.E.2d 336. As to respondent being guilty of suchacquiescence and delay as to bar her from asserting any claimto the property involved: 118 S.C. 342, 110 S.E. 798; 6 S.E. 216; 118 S.C. 342, 110 S.E. 798. Messrs. Price Poag, of Greenville, for Respondent, cite: As to the trial Judge properly awarding to the respondent,as a resulting trust, all of her contributions invested by theplaintiff in the purchase of a lot and the construction of ahouse thereon: 78 S.C. 490, 59 S.E. 533; 23 S.C. 251; 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029; 54 Am. Jur., Trusts, Sec. 216; 187 S.C. 36, 196 S.E. 369; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur., Sec. 1037; 215 S.C. 514, 56 S.E.2d 336.

  2. Larisey v. Larisey

    93 S.C. 450 (S.C. 1913)   Cited 24 times

    Action by W.N. Larisey against M.L. Larisey. Plaintiff appeals. Messrs. Fishburne Fishburne, for appellants, cite: Wasa resulting trust created here? 39 Cyc. 104, 105, 120, 160-1; 90 S.C. 522; 80 S.C. 31. Did appellant acquire a vestedinterest when deed was executed? Rice Eq. 261; 83 S.C. 329; 39 Cyc. 120, 160. Was there delivery of deed toappellant? 44 S.C. 364; 13 Syc. 561-2; Rice Eq. 243; 13 Cyc. 567; 81 S.C. 455; 12 L.R.A. 171; 54 L.R.A. 865. Messrs. Padgett, Lemacks Moorer, contra, cite: Titlebecomes complete only upon offer and acceptance of delivery: 1 Warville on Vendors 582, 584, 588, 589, 591; 41 N.Y. 416; 44 S.C. 364; 2 Hill 411; 54 L.R.A. 865. Is therea resulting trust? 1 Perry on Trusts 157, 159, 191, 195; 1 Strob. Eq. 103; 1 Speer Eq. 20; 26 S.C. 231; 32 S.C. 590; 59 S.C. 283, 467; 78 S.C. 490; 56 S.C. 78; 52 S.C. 388; 27 S.C. 39; 90 S.C. 522; 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 161. Thelaw as to resulting trusts: 4 Words and Phrases 3084-5-6, 3091-2-3; 20 Cyc. 1192, 1195-6; 7 Johns N.Y. 26; 38 S.C. 173; 47 S.C. 307.

  3. In re Prince

    C/A No. 11-01041-DD (Bankr. D.S.C. Jul. 13, 2011)

    South Carolina law is clear that a resulting trust arises, if at all, only at the time of the purchase of the land or good at issue. Larisey v. Larisey, 77 S.E. 129, 130 (S.C. 1913) (citing Surasky v. Weintraub, 73 S.E. 1029, 1031 (S.C. 1912)). A resulting trust "cannot arise from subsequent transactions, change of circumstances or intention."

  4. Pride v. Pride

    236 S.E.2d 404 (S.C. 1977)

    wn admission committed adultery: 254 S.C. 272, 175 S.E.2d 628; 258 S.C. 135, 187 S.E.2d 528; 244 S.C. 265, 136 S.E.2d 537; 170 S.E.2d 650; 123 W. Va. 599, 18 S.E.2d 656; 237 S.C. 532, 118 S.E.2d 171; 230 S.C. 451; 215 S.C. 502, 56 S.E.2d 330. As to the Court's having erred in finding thatthe resumption of marital relations after the husband learnedof the wife's alleged adultery was not condonation by him,but was condonation by her for his physical cruelty: 251 S.C. 117, 160 S.E.2d 558; 221 Ga. 420, 86 S.E.2d 288; 50 N.J. Ruper 210, 141 A.2d 562; 146 Fla. 311, 1 So.2d 186. As to the Court's having erred in divestingthe wife of all interest in her husband's property when shehad worked and contributed to the acquisition of said propertyfor eleven years: 203 Va. 677, 127 S.E.2d 104, 1 A.L.R. 3d 118; 270 C.J.S. Divorce 293, 24 Am. Jur.2d Divorce and Separation Sec. 928, 1057; 27B C.J.S. Divorce, Sec. 293; 239 S.C. 339, 123 S.E.2d 297; 115 Colo. 505, 176 P.2d 363; 165 N.C. 397, 81 S.E. 627; 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029; 237 S.C. 424, 117 S.E.2d 583; Annotation 1 A.L.R. 3d 118. As to the Court'shaving erred in awarding custody of the minor child of theparties to his paternal grandmother when she was not aparty to the action and neither requested nor accepted custody: Section 31-51 Code of Laws of South Carolina; 232 S.C. 12, 100 S.E.2d 231. Hemphill P. Pride, II, and Jesse Clark, of Jenkins, Perryand Pride, and Walter W. Brooks, of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to the Lower Court's not having committederror by granting the Respondent husband a divorceon ground of the Appellant wife's adultery, inasmuch as theevidence was patently clear and irrefragable that she committedadultery with numerous men: 244 S.C. 520, 80 S.E.2d 123; 228 S.C. 149, 89 S.E.2d 225; 220 S.C. 90, 66 S.E.2d 629; 215 S.C. 502, 56 S.E.2d 330; 248 S.C. 144, 149 S.E. 353; 252 S.C. 160, 165 S.E.2d 632; 259 S.C. 418, 192 S.E.2d 329; 228 S.C. 149, 89 S.E.2d 225; 246 S.C. 355; 251 S.C. 117, 160 S.E.2d 558; 216 S.C. 451; 3 Am. Jur. Pr

  5. Glover v. Glover

    268 S.C. 433 (S.C. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    April 20, 1977.Dallas D. Ball, Esq., of Columbia, f or Appellant, cites: Asto the lower Court's having erred in its determination thatEx Parte Stokes, 256 S.C. 260, 182 S.E.2d 306 (1971),altered the well-established rule that a person seeking a resultingtrust must have paid a definite portion of the purchaseprice at the time of or prior to the conveyance: 2 Johns Ch. [(N.Y.) 405]; 187 S.C. 36, 196 S.E. 369; 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029. As to the lower Court's having committedreversible error in finding that events subsequent to the transactionwere sufficient to establish a resulting trust in favor ofRespondent: 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029; 256 S.C. 260, 182 S.E.2d 306; 240 S.C. 13, 124 S.E.2d 611; 235 S.C. 119, 110 S.E.2d 17; 221 S.C. 278, 70 S.E.2d 223; 243 S.C. 299, 133 S.E.2d 816. Luther M. Lee, Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to the lower Court's properly upholding the Master'sfinding that the payment of Five Hundred and No/100($500.00) Dollars by the Respondent to the Appellant withintwo (2) months of the purchase of the property in questionconstituted a definite portion of the purchase price sufficientto establish a resulting trust in favor of the Respondent: 262 S.C. 639, 640, 207 S.E.2d 82; 187 S.C. 36, 39, 196 S.E. 369. As to the lower Court's properly allowing testimonyconcerning events subsequent to the purchase of therealty in question to determine the intention of the partiesto the action: 2

  6. Hutto v. Hutto

    187 S.C. 36 (S.C. 1938)   Cited 11 times

    Mr. W.R. Symmes, for appellant, cites: Creation of resultingtrust by parol: 26 R.C.L., 1224; 16 S.C. 257; 5 L.R.A. (N.S.), 118; 25 R.C.L., 596; 39 Cyc., 106; 72 S.C. 312. Credibility of witnesses: 5 Strob., 167; 10 R.C. L., 1005. Mr. L. Marion Gressette, for respondent, cites: Competencyof testimony: 44 S.C. 22; 21 S.E., 976; 65 A.S. R., 487; 117 A.S.R., 241; 28 L.R.A. (N.S.), 798; 29 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1180; Ann. Cas., 1913-E, 796; 72 S.C. 312; 51 S.E., 884. Statute of Frauds: 25 R.C.L., 592; 182 S.E., 291. Trusts: 19 S.C. 126; 17 Wall., 59; 90 S.C. 522; 73 S.E., 1031; 93 S.C. 450; 77 S.E., 129. As tofindings of fact by Referee: 20 S.C. 282; 12 S.C. 154. April 5, 1938.

  7. Anderson v. Architectural Glass Constr., Inc. (In re Pfister)

    749 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2014)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no resulting trust arose where the entire purchase price was financed and, therefore, was not paid for or intended to be paid for on the date of purchase by the party claiming a resulting trust and that party entered an agreement to lease the property from the title holders prior to claiming a resulting trust

    A party seeking to overcome the gift presumption and establish a resulting trust must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) it paid for the property (or committed to pay for the property), (2) with the intent to own it, (3) on the date of purchase. Moore v. McKelvey, 266 S.C. 95, 221 S.E.2d 780, 781 (1976); Surasky v. Weintraub, 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029, 1031 (1912). The last requirement is important.

  8. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Mills

    146 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1944)   Cited 5 times

    The contention of plaintiff is that upon the facts as found by the court there was no resulting trust but an express trust, which under the statute of frauds could not be established by parol testimony. For the position that it is an express and not a resulting trust they rely upon Surasky v. Weintraub, 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029; Bell v. Edwards, 78 S.C. 490, 59 S.E. 535; and Manning v. Screven, 56 S.C. 78, 83, 34 S.E. 22. Whether the trust is to be treated as a resulting or an express trust, however, it is not important to inquire, since in our opinion parol evidence is admissible to establish it here in either case. It is true, of course, that the seventh section of the Statute of Frauds is a part of the statute law of South Carolina. Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942, § 9041. This, however, is not a suit to establish a trust but to set aside a conveyance alleged to be fraudulent under the statute of 13 Elizabeth, Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942, § 8696; and the controversy is not between the holder of the legal title and the one claiming the trust but between creditors of him who formerly held the legal title and those to whom the property has been conveyed by him pursuant to the trust agreement.

  9. Haynes v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No. 8:12-00470-TMC (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    However, the trust must arise at the time the real estate is purchased and not as a result of later advances of funds or subsequent transactions. See Green v. Green, 237 S.C. 424, 435 (1960); Surasky v. Weintraub, 90 S.C. 522 (1912). When Michel conveyed the property to Efford, no money exchanged hands, so no resulting trust arose.

  10. Holtzclaw v. Morgan (In re Holtzclaw)

    634 B.R. 920 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Requiring the non-filing spouse to seek relief from the bankruptcy court prior to the transfer of title of any property of the bankruptcy estate and prior to enforcement of any judgment regarding ownership of property that is property of the estate to adequately protect the estate

    A party seeking to overcome the gift presumption and establish a resulting trust must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) it paid for the property (or committed to pay for the property), (2) with the intent to own it, (3) on the date of purchase. Moore v. McKelvey, 266 S.C. 95, 221 S.E.2d 780, 781 (1976) ; Surasky v. Weintraub , 90 S.C. 522, 73 S.E. 1029, 1031 (1912). The last requirement is important.