Robinson v. The Estate of Harris

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Sara Mae
Robinson, Mary Ann Campbell, James Scott, Ellis Scott, William Scott, Shirley
Pinckney Hughes, Julius Steven Brown, Leon Brown, Annabell Brown, Loretta
Ladson, Kathleen Brown, Mozelle B. Rembert, Patricia Frickling, Ruth
Mitchell, Gwendolyn Dunn, Angela Hamilton, Geraldine Jameson, Remus Prioleau,
Julius Prioleau, Anthony Prioleau, Judy Brown, Franklin Brown, Kathy Young,
Kenneth Prioleau, Willis Jameson, Melvin Pinckney, William
"Alonzie" Pinckney, Ruth Fussell, Hattie Wilson, Marie Watson,
Gloria Becoat, Angela T. Burnett, and Lawrence Redmond, Appellants,

v.

The Estate of
Eloise Pinckney Harris, Jerome C. Harris, as Personal Representative and sole
heir and devisee of the Estate of Eloise P. Harris, Daniel Duggan, Mark F.
Teseniar, Nan M. Teseniar, David Savage, Lisa M. Shogry-Savage, Debbie S.
Dinovo, Martine A. Hutton, The Converse Company, LLC, Judy Pinckney
Singleton, Mary Leavy, Michelle Davis, Leroy Brisbane, Frances Brisbane, and
John Doe, Jane Doe, Richard Roe and Mary Roe, who are fictitious names
representing all unknown persons and the heirs at law or devisees of the
following deceased persons known as Simeon B. Pinckney, Isabella Pinckney,
Alex Pinckney, Mary Pinckney, Samuel James Pinckney, Rebecca Riley Pinckney,
James H. Pinckney, William Brown, Sara Pinckney, Julia H. Pinckney, Laura
Riley Pinckney Heyward, Herbert Pinckney, Ellis Pinckney, Jannie Gathers,
Robert Seabrook, Annie Haley Pinckney, Lillian Pinckney Seabrook, Simeon B.
Pinckney, Jr., Matthew G. Pinckney, Mary Riley, John Riley, Richard Riley,
Daniel McLeod, and all other persons unknown claiming any right, title,
estate, interest, or lien upon the real estate tracts described in the
Compliant herein,Defendants,

of whom The
Estate of Eloise Pinckney Harris, Jerome C. Harris and Judy P. Singleton are Respondents.

Appeal From Charleston County

 R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-705

Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed
December 16, 2008   

REVERSED AND REMANDED

George J. Morris, of Charleston, Walter  Bilbro, Jr., of Charleston, for Appellants.

Edward M. Brown, of Charleston, for Respondents.

Charles M. Feeley, of Summerville, for Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM:  This
is an action to quiet title to four tracts of real property in James Island,
South Carolina.  At issue in this appeal, is a ten-acre tract that had once
been owned by Simeon B. Pinckney.  In their complaint, Sara Mae Robinson and
the other named appellants (collectively “Appellants”) claimed title to the
property based on their assertion that they are the sole surviving legitimate
heirs of Simeon B. Pinckney.  They further alleged that, through fraudulent
cross-deeds from individuals with no lawful interest in the property, the tract
was eventually conveyed to the now deceased Eloise Pinckney Harris, who during
her lifetime had attempted to convey a part of the tract to Judy P. Singleton. 
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Estate of Eloise Pinckney
Harris, Jerome C. Harris, as Personal Representative and sole heir and devisee
of the Estate of Eloise P. Harris, and Judy P. Singleton (collectively
“Respondents”), holding Appellants’ lawsuit to quiet title on the ten-acre
tract was untimely.  This appeal followed.  We reverse and remand.[1]

1.  The trial
court granted summary judgment to Respondents on the ground that this lawsuit
was barred under section 15-3-340 of the South Carolina Code (2005).  We hold
this was error.  Whereas section 15-3-340 addresses actions for either the
recovery of real property or the recovery of possession of real property,
Appellants’ amended complaint asserted the ownership interest in the subject
property asserted by the Estate of Eloise Harris and the devisees of Eloise
Harris were based on “erroneous forgeries and fraudulent cross-deeds and devises.”  This
allegation was the gravamen of Appellants’ lawsuit insofar as it concerned the
ten-acre tract.  As such, any limitation period set by section 15-3-340 would
be inapplicable.  See McKinnon v. Summers, 224 S.C. 331, 336, 79
S.E.2d 146, 148 (1953) (stating a complaint for cancellation of a deed on the
ground of forgery is different from an action for the recovery of real
property).  Moreover, even if we were to take the complaint at face value as
one to quiet title, such an action would not governed by section 15-3-340.  See Fox v. Moultrie, 379 S.C. 609, 613, 777 S.E.2d 915, 917 (2008) (“An
action to quiet title is one in equity.”); Parr v. Parr, 268 S.C. 58, 67,
231 S.E.2d 695, 699 (1977) (stating statutes of limitation are generally not
applicable in equitable actions). 

2.  In their briefs, the
parties address both the applicability of laches and the legal ramifications of
Appellants’ failure to file claims against the estates of Ellis Pinckney and
Isadora Pinckney.  Neither point, however, is a basis on which to affirm the
appealed order.  The trial court’s reference to Appellants’ failure to file
claims against the estates of Ellis Pinckney and Isadora Pinckney was not
presented as an independent ground for summary judgment, and there is no
mention of laches in the appealed order. 

REVERSED AND
REMANDED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

[1]  We decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.