The circuit court did not err in failing to impose a resulting or constructive trust over the property.
We affirmed the court’s order.
In this civil action, appellants Vidhya and Darshak, individually and as co-personal representatives of the estate of Ramesh, appealed the court’s order finding in favor of respondents. Among other things, appellants argued the court erred by failing to impose a resulting or constructive trust over the property at issue and support its order with evidence presented at trial. Respondents cross-appealed, arguing the court erred by denying their request for relief under the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act (FCPSA) and failing to award attorneys’ fees and costs against appellants.
The circuit court did not err by finding appellants failed to establish a resulting trust for Ramesh’s benefit as to the subject convenience store and residence. Appellants failed to meet their burden of proving that either the residence or the convenience store was purchased for Ramesh’s benefit. Appellants also failed to set forth definite, clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Vidhya or Ramesh paid a definite portion of the purchase money when the residence or convenience store was purchased.
As to the lease of the convenience store, the record does not set forth by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that Ramesh surrendered his ownership interest in the Newberry hotel to satisfy the balance on the note for the lease of the convenience store. As to the purchase of the convenience store, no documentary evidence shows Ramesh paid any portion of the down payment.
The evidence did not support appellants’ assertions that respondents held legal title to either property for Ramesh’s benefit due to his immigration status.
Next, the circuit court did not err by failing to find a constructive trust arose in Ramesh’s favor. Appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing a constructive trust. Further, it was not established by clear, definite, and unequivocal evidence that Ramesh paid any portion of the down payment on the purchase of the convenience store.
Vidhya’s testimony that she considered herself and Ramesh to be owners of the convenience store did not set forth clear, definite, and unequivocal evidence that Ramesh was entitled to equitable ownership of the convenience store. The testimony failed to establish clear, definite, and unequivocal evidence of a constructive trust.
Appellants also failed to demonstrate the circuit court erred by ignoring evidence presented at trial or by relying upon the testimony of respondents as to the underlying facts and the interpretation of documentary evidence.
Finally, the circuit court did not err by failing to grant respondents relief under the FCPSA on the ground that appellants failed to respond within the statutory 30-day period or refusing to award attorneys’ fees and costs based upon its finding that appellants’ case was not “frivolous.”
Affirmed.
Patel v. Patel (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-017-24, 17 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Laurens County Circuit Court (Eugene C. Griffith Jr., J.) Sierra Danielle Carini and S. Jahue Moore, both of Moore Bradley Myers, PA, of West Columbia; and Samuel M. Price, Jr. and Jennifer Dowd Nichols, both of Newberry, all for appellants-respondents; Desa Ballard and Harvey M. Watson, III, both of Ballard & Watson, Attorneys at Law, of West Columbia; and Thomas Carroll Jeter, III, of Nosal & Jeter, LLP, of Fort Mill, all for respondents-appellants. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished