Wayne J. Rogers v. Arthur Rogers

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Wayne J. Rogers, Appellant,

v.

Tomika Craig and Arthur Rogers, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2024-002104

Appeal From Laurens County
Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-264
Submitted May 1, 2026 – Filed June 3, 2026

AFFIRMED

Thomas J. Thompson, of Townsend & Thompson, LLP,
of Laurens, and Michael Bland Dodd, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Clayton L. Jennings, of Jennings Law Firm, LLC, of
Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from an action brought by Wayne J. Rogers
(Appellant) to set aside a deed conveying real property in Laurens County (the
Property) to Tomika Craig and Arthur Rogers (collectively, Respondents). On
appeal, Appellant argues the circuit court erred in finding (1) the deed was valid on
its face, and (2) Appellant did not meet his burden to set aside the deed based on
fraud or forgery. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondents are the biological children of Appellant. On March 18, 2022,
Appellant commenced this action by filing a Summons and Complaint seeking a
declaratory judgment setting aside a deed from Appellant to Respondents based on
allegations that the deed was false, fraudulent, and forged. The deed was executed
on January 22, 2022, and recorded in Laurens County on February 4, 2022.

At the bench trial in October 2024, the court heard testimony from Appellant, his
wife, his stepson, and his sister-in-law. Appellant's stepson testified that on the
day the deed was purportedly executed, he was home all day, and no visitors came
to the home. He testified to Appellant's history of Alzheimer's, dementia, and
Parkinsons; however, when asked "in January of 2022[,] was [Appellant] capable
of signing documents?" he responded "Yeah. Yes, he's capable of signing. Yes."
Appellant testified to his medical history and admitted his memory was not good.
Appellant was unable to answer multiple questions, and his testimony was often
scattered, incongruous, and unclear. Appellant's wife then testified that Appellant
left work in 2015 because of his cognitive decline and after his Alzheimer's
diagnosis, it was very rare to leave him alone. She stated she was home all day on
January 22, 2022, they had no visitors, and the signature on the deed does not
resemble Appellant's signature.

Respondent Arthur testified and admitted he had forged Appellant's signature in
the past and was prosecuted for those charges. Arthur recalled meeting with
Appellant and Tomika to discuss the deed, and he remembered Appellant saying
something about wanting Respondents to return the Property to him. After
Appellant rested, Respondents moved for a directed verdict based on Appellant's
failure to show by clear and convincing evidence that the deed should be set aside
when it was valid and regular on its face. The circuit court denied the motion,
acknowledging that because this was a non-jury trial, he wanted to hear both sides.

Attorney Gary Williams next testified that he was a practicing attorney in Laurens
for approximately thirty-four years and he had prepared deeds for multiple homes
on Appellant's street during his career. Attorney Williams testified that he went to
Appellant's home to execute the deed on January 22, 2022, along with the witness,
Roslyn Smith Johnson. Attorney Williams identified Appellant in the courtroom
as the same person who signed the deed and ruled out the possibility that it was
Arthur who executed the deed. Attorney Williams further agreed that it would not
make sense to risk the loss of his license to practice law over attesting to the
signature of someone who did not sign a deed for a fee of $265.00. Tomika then
testified that in the beginning of 2021, Appellant showed her paperwork related to
the Property and informed her that he owned the Property and wanted to leave it to
his biological children. Tomika stated Appellant was using Townsend and
Thompson attorneys "for the paperwork," and after she conducted her own
research, she took the necessary paperwork to their office. She then contacted
Attorney Williams and retained his services to prepare the deed. Tomika produced
a Certificate of Title dated January 13, 2022, that transferred title of a mobile home
on the Property from Appellant to Tomika.

At the close of the trial, the circuit court announced its ruling. It first stated that
competency and undue influence were not before the court. It then denied
Appellant declaratory relief, orally finding:

I have testimony of Gary Williams, who is a longtime
well-respected attorney in Laurens, who testified that it
was indeed [Appellant] who signed the deed in question
on January 22, 2022. I have that testimony versus the
testimony of the plaintiff who has some form, not sure to
what extent, but has some form of dementia currently.
And he testified that he did not sign the deed. I think it's
kind of a no brainer that I would side with the testimony
of Mr. Williams.

A written order was entered on November 13, 2024, reflecting the court's oral
rulings and specifically noting Appellant's inconsistent testimony, Attorney
Williams' confirmation that the valid deed was properly recorded and in
compliance with all applicable statutes, and there was no allegation in the
complaint that Appellant lacked mental capacity at the time of execution or that the
deed was the result of undue influence or coercion. The court held the deed was
duly recorded, valid on its face, and Appellant did not meet his burden to set aside
the deed based on fraud or forgery. Rather, the court found that testimony and
evidence at trial demonstrated clear and convincing evidence that Appellant signed
the deed. Appellant did not move for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
"An action . . . to set aside a deed [is a matter] in equity." Shirey v. Bishop, 431
S.C. 412, 421, 848 S.E.2d 325, 330 (Ct. App. 2020). "In reviewing a proceeding in
equity, [an appellate] court may find facts based on its own view of the
preponderance of the evidence." Id. (quoting Greer v. Spartanburg Tech. Coll.,
388 S.C. 76, 79, 524 S.E.2d 856, 858 (Ct. App. 1999)). "While this permits us a
broad scope of review, we do not disregard the findings of the [court], who saw
and heard the witnesses and was in a better position to evaluate their credibility."
Skipper v. Perrone, 382 S.C. 53, 57, 674 S.E.2d 510, 512 (Ct. App. 2009) (quoting
Tiger, Inc. v. Fisher Argo, Inc., 301 S.C. 229, 237, 391 S.E.2d 538, 543 (1989)).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Appellant argues the circuit court erred in finding the deed was valid on its face
"despite overwhelming evidence that Appellant lacked the capacity to comprehend
the nature of his act." Appellant further argues the circuit court erred in finding
Appellant did not meet his burden to set aside the deed based on fraud or forgery
"despite the overwhelming evidence indicating . . . either Arthur . . . forged the
signature or that Appellant . . . lacked the capacity to comprehend the nature of his
act." We hold Appellant's arguments based on incapacity and undue influence are
not preserved for our review as they were not raised to and ruled upon by the
circuit court. See Fraternal Order of Police v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 352 S.C.
420, 435, 574 S.E.2d 717, 725 (2002) (holding "[a]s the [issue] was not pleaded,
discussed extensively at trial, or ruled upon by the [circuit court], it is not
preserved for review"); Staubes v. City of Folly Beach, 339 S.C. 406, 412, 529
S.E.2d 543, 546 (2000) ("It is well-settled that an issue cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit]
court to be preserved for appellate review."); Chastain v. Hiltabidle, 381 S.C. 508,
515, 673 S.E.2d 826, 829 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When an issue is raised to but not
ruled upon by the [circuit] court, the issue is preserved for appeal only if the party
raises the same issue in a Rule 59(e) motion [to alter or amend]."). Accordingly,
the only arguments before the court are based on fraud and forgery. We find the
deed was valid and Appellant did not meet his burden to set aside the deed based
on fraud or forgery.

"Where a deed is valid and regular on its face, it is presumed to be valid in all
respects." Davis v. Monteith, 289 S.C. 176, 182, 345 S.E.2d 724, 727 (1986). A
party seeking to invalidate a deed for fraud or misrepresentation must prove the
allegation by clear and convincing evidence. See Rivers v. Woodside Nat'l Bank of
Greenville, 150 S.C. 45, 49, 147 S.E. 661, 663 (1929) ("The deed under attack is
regular and valid on its face, which gives rise to the presumption that it is valid in
all respects. Being attacked for fraud and misrepresentations, it devolved upon
plaintiff to make the fraud or misrepresentations appear by clear and convincing
evidence.").

Here, the deed was duly recorded and was valid on its face; therefore, it is
presumed to be valid in all respects. See S.C. Code Ann. § 12-24-110 (2014)
("When an instrument has been recorded it is presumed that all requirements of law
affecting the title to the realty have been complied with."). Attorney Williams
testified that the deed complied with all statutory requirements. The deed
identified the grantor and the grantees, contained the language provided by section
27-7-10 of the South Carolina Code (2007 & Supp. 2025), was properly witnessed
and notarized as required by section 30-5-30 of the South Carolina Code (2007 &
Supp. 2025), and contained a derivation clause required by section 30-5-35 of the
South Carolina Code (2007). It was recorded in the Register of Deeds for Laurens
County on February 4, 2022, which created a strong presumption of validity that
could only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The only evidence
presented to the court allegedly proving fraud was the testimony of Appellant, who
openly suffered with mental impairments, and Respondents' stepfamily.1 Although
Appellant was not required to call an expert witness to testify regarding the alleged
forged signature, we believe further evidence and testimony was required to
overcome Appellant's burden. See Davis, 289 S.C. at 182, 345 S.E.2d at 727
(holding a deed should not have been set aside by the circuit court because it was
duly recorded and valid on its face, and there was no evidence before the court to
rebut the presumption of validity).

AFFIRMED.2

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
In its order, the circuit court declined to award Respondents their requested
attorney's fees "considering all the circumstances related to this familial dispute."
From our review of the record, it appears there was animosity between Appellant's
biological family (Respondents) and his stepfamily. This animosity was amplified
during litigation. We note this discord to reiterate the deference afforded to the
circuit court to determine witness credibility included in our standard of review.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.