• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of some of the recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. To check for updates in your area of interest, simply click on the Practice Area to your left.

Probate Law

In re Theisen, 382 S.C. 213, 676 S.E.2d 133 (2009).
Opinion No. 26630, decided April 13, 2009.

The decedent died on November 16, 2004, and on January 11, 2005, the personal representatives of the decedent’s estate filed his will and two codicils for informal probate in New Jersey (as specified by the will). On March 3, 2005, one of the decedent’s daughters filed a complaint in South Carolina requesting a determination of the proper forum for probating the will. The court held that principles of comity required that New Jersey courts determine any jurisdictional issues. Eleven months later, on February 3, 2006, the same daughter filed a petition in South Carolina challenging the validity of the will, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the action was barred by the eight-month limitations period provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-108(3). On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute began to run when the will was filed for informal probate in New Jersey and rejecting the daughter’s argument that the statute did not apply to out-of-state probate proceedings.

In re Estate of Anderson, 381 S.C. 568, 674 S.E.2d 176 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4506, decided February 24, 2009.

The decedent executed a new will just a few months before she died, leaving her entire estate to her two grandchildren to the exclusion of her sole surviving daughter. After the decedent’s death, her daughter filed a petition challenging the validity of the will, asserting that it was void because of undue influence. The probate court found that the will was valid, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed. The court acknowledged that a presumption of undue influence was raised by virtue of the fact that one of the beneficiaries was the decedent’s attorney in fact at the time the new will was executed, but held that the beneficiaries presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption and that substantial evidence in the record supported a finding that the will was valid and not the result of undue influence.

Ex Parte Wheeler v. Estate of Green, 381 S.C. 548, 673 S.E.2d 836 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4494, decided January 30, 2009.

Under the decedent’s will, the personal representative of the estate was required to sell the decedent’s real property in the manner “most advantageous financially” to the decedent’s estate. A potential buyer named Powers expressed an interest in purchasing the decedent’s residence and asked the personal representative for a copy of the appraisal. An appraisal was conducted and valued the residence at $320,000, but the personal representative failed to send a copy of the appraisal to Powers. Subsequently, the personal representative accepted an offer from another buyer for $325,000 and petitioned the Probate Court for approval of the sale. Upon learning of the petition, Powers tendered a written offer to purchase the residence for $385,000. Powers and the beneficiaries of the decedent’s will answered the petition and alleged that the personal representative had breached her fiduciary duties by failing to consider Powers’ substantially higher offer. The Probate Court denied the petition, found that the personal representative had breached her fiduciary duties, and approved the sale of the residence to Powers. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and approved the personal representative’s petition. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Powers did not actually make a formal offer on the residence in the four-plus months following the decedent’s death, the personal representative would likely have breached her fiduciary duties had she not accepted the initial (and sole) offer.

In re Campbell, 379 S.C. 593, 666 S.E.2d 908 (2008).
Opinion No. 26540, decided September 8, 2008.

A daughter petitioned to be appointed conservator of her mother’s assets, alleging that her mother was no longer mentally capable of caring for her assets. The probate court appointed two doctors, both of whom the mother had previously designated as expert witnesses, as examiners for the mother. The doctors found the mother to be competent, and the probate court held as a result that there was no need to appoint a conservator. The circuit court reversed the probate court’s order, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Probate Code implicitly requires that doctors examining a person’s capacity to handle his or her own affairs must be “disinterested.” However, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that it was error to read into the statute an overriding requirement that court-appointed examiners be disinterested. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the reversal of the probate court’s order on the grounds that the probate court abused its discretion by failing to appoint neutral and objective examiners, finding that while examiners need not necessarily be “disinterested,” they must be “unbiased.”

Osterneck v. Osterneck, 374 S.C. 573, 649 S.E.2d 127 (Ct. App. 2007).
Opinion No. 4265, decided June 27, 2007.

The central issue in this case was whether there was a family agreement for the decedent’s wife to disclaim her interest in a joint certificate of deposit in exchange for receiving full ownership of the marital home. The South Carolina Court of Appeals found that the greater weight of the evidence showed that such an agreement did in fact exist and that it was valid even though not in writing because it was entered into prior to the effective date of the Probate Code.

Plyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 647 S.E.2d 188 (2007).
Opinion No. 26335, decided June 11, 2007.

The plaintiff alleged several causes of action against a county probate court relating to its role in supervising her conservatorship. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that because the probate court’s actions were judicial in nature, the court was immune from suit under common law judicial immunity. Furthermore, the probate court did not waive the defense of immunity by omitting the defense from its motion to dismiss because it discussed the defense in its supporting memorandum. The probate court also established several exceptions to the general waiver of immunity in the South Carolina Tort Claims Act.

 



Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.