Cartwright v. First Baptist Church of Keysville, Inc.
316 Ga. App. 299
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cartwright sued First Baptist Church of Keysville seeking title to two tracts under implied and express trust theories.
- A prior quia timet action (1997–1998) awarded fee simple title to the Church and established the boundary between the parties.
- Cartwright had previously deeded property to the Church in 1976 and 1993 with a reverting interest if the Church ceased use.
- The 1998 quia timet decree stated the Church held fee simple title against the world and settled title and boundary.
- Cartwright later challenged the effect of the quia timet decree on her present trust claim, and the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (jnov) against Cartwright.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the quia timet decree conclusively established the Church’s title and barred Cartwright’s later action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the quia timet decree have res judicata effect on Cartwright’s later trust claim? | Cartwright. | Church. | Yes; decree conclusively established title against all and bars later claim. |
| Was Cartwright's standing sufficient to raise an implied/express trust claim despite the Church’s prior title? | Cartwright had standing to assert the trust to affect marketability. | Even if title vesting occurred differently, prior action barred later claim. | Yes; prior action bars present title claim and trusts claim. |
| Did the quia timet action address the same title issues necessary to bar the current action? | The action addressed different timing of church’s operation and thus different issues. | Decree settled title and cloud against the world. | Yes; the decree resolved title against all and precludes later attack. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piedmont Cotton Mills v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109 (Ga. 1998) (quiet title action; conclusively settles title to remove cloud)
- Smith v. Ga. Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755 (Ga. 1994) (res judicata scope when merits could have been determined)
- Piedmont Cotton Mills v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109 (Ga. 1998) (reiteration of in rem effect and marketability principle)