Background
Three lots on Blackstock Road in Inman, Spartanburg County, have been in the Jackson family since 1962, when Irene Hardy Jackson and John C. Jackson received the deed for $1 and “love and affection.” In 1985, the parents deeded the property to their daughter Diane Jackson for $10 and “love and affection.” Diane lived on the property from childhood and maintained it for decades.
In 1989, a family dispute arose when Diane’s husband — considered a flight risk — had pledged the property as security for a bond. To protect the land from a potential forfeiture, the family asked Diane to transfer the property to her sister, Lorine Jackson. Two competing versions of what happened next became the core of this litigation. The deed that appears in the record — the “Cheek Deed,” drafted by attorney James Cheek — reflects an unrestricted conveyance from Diane to Lorine for $10 and love and affection. Appellants contended that Diane actually signed a different deed earlier the same day, notarized by Gary Burgess (the “Burgess Deed”), that imposed conditions on Lorine’s ownership — specifically, that the property must always remain available for the benefit of the parents’ children. The Burgess Deed is lost.
Diane continued to live on and maintain the property until 2022, when Lorine evicted her. Following the eviction, family members commenced this suit seeking either an express trust, a resulting trust, or a constructive trust, plus an accounting. After a bench trial, the Spartanburg County Circuit Court denied relief, holding that Appellants had not met their burden to impose a constructive trust. Appellants appealed the constructive trust ruling; the express trust and duress arguments were unpreserved.
The Court’s Holding
Affirmed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the constructive trust claim de novo, as equity actions allow, but applied heightened deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations.
The court first addressed the fraud argument underpinning Appellants’ constructive trust theory. Under South Carolina law, a constructive trust is imposed when fraud, bad faith, abuse of confidence, or violation of a fiduciary duty — in its equitable sense, not necessarily in its legal sense — would make it inequitable for the legal title holder to retain the property. The evidence must be “clear, definite, and unequivocal.” Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525 (1987). Appellants argued Diane did not sign the Cheek Deed but instead signed only a blank piece of paper at home — pointing to attorney Cheek’s office-drafted deed as a fraud. Cheek, however, testified that Diane came to his office and executed the deed before two witnesses. Notary Burgess testified that the deed he notarized was different from the Cheek Deed, but he could not confirm that what he notarized was actually a deed at all. With conflicting testimony and a lost document, the circuit court resolved the credibility dispute against Appellants, and the Court of Appeals deferred to that finding.
Even accepting Appellants’ account — that the original family transfer from parents to Diane was intended to be held in trust for all family members, and that this intent carried forward to Diane’s transfer to Lorine — the court held the constructive trust standard was not met. The only deed in the record reflects an unrestricted conveyance to Lorine, who is herself a member of the same family. An unrestricted transfer to a family member, without more, does not demonstrate the type of inequitable acquisition or retention that justifies imposing a constructive trust on the recipient.
The court also declined to address the express trust claim because Appellants had expressly abandoned it below — affirmatively telling the circuit court they were “not proceeding on the express trust [theory]” — and had failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion to preserve any issue the circuit court left unaddressed. The duress argument was similarly unpreserved.
Key Takeaways
- To impose a constructive trust in South Carolina, the evidence of fraud, bad faith, abuse of confidence, or fiduciary breach must be “clear, definite, and unequivocal.” Credibility conflicts resolved at the trial level receive deference on appeal even under the de novo review applicable to equity actions.
- A lost or missing deed cannot, by itself, support a constructive trust claim. Without a document in the record demonstrating the conditions or restrictions allegedly imposed on the conveyance, Appellants cannot carry the high evidentiary burden required to override the legal title shown by the recorded deed.
- A party that abandons a legal theory at trial — expressly telling the court it is “not proceeding” on that theory — cannot revive it on appeal. Similarly, when a trial court fails to rule on an issue, a Rule 59(e) motion is required to preserve it for appellate review.
- A transfer to a family member, even one made under informally understood family obligations, does not automatically constitute the type of inequitable acquisition that warrants constructive trust imposition. Something more than familial expectation — actual documented fraud or fiduciary breach — must be proven.
Why It Matters
Gray v. Jackson illustrates the uphill battle plaintiffs face when the only evidence of an alleged trust arrangement is oral testimony contradicting a recorded deed. South Carolina courts apply strict proof requirements to constructive trust claims, and the absence of a written instrument documenting the conditions — particularly when combined with testimony the trial court chose not to credit — will typically prove fatal to the claim. For families that hold real property informally, this case underscores the importance of recording any restrictions or trust obligations in a written instrument that survives the transaction.
The decision also reinforces South Carolina’s strict preservation rules for appellate practice. Abandoning a claim at trial is a strategic choice with consequences; parties that decide mid-litigation that a theory is too difficult to prove cannot revisit it on appeal, and the failure to file a Rule 59(e) motion when the trial court fails to address an issue is a further forfeiture. In complex equity cases with multiple theories, counsel should ensure every live theory receives a ruling — or promptly seek one post-trial.