What Does It Take to Prove Undue Influence when Contesting a Will?
Undue influence is one of the most common reasons a last will may be found invalid in South Carolina, along with procedural errors and lack of testamentary capacity. (Read more about all three on our blog here.) When someone pressures or coerces the testator – the person making their will – to create or change the terms of the will in their favor, that’s undue influence. A will that’s the result of undue influence can be voided by the court.
But having a will declared invalid isn’t easy. There’s a presumption that a will is valid, as long as the testator was of sound mind and followed the correct procedures when executing it. In South Carolina, if someone wants to challenge the validity of a last will on the grounds of undue influence, the burden of proof is on the person challenging the will.
This can be difficult because, in the words of the South Carolina Court of Appeals in Gunnells v. Harkness, “our courts have recognized that ‘the evidence of undue influence will be mainly circumstantial’ because undue influence is often exercised behind closed doors, preventing any direct proof.”
With this in mind, how difficult is it to show undue influence, and what does it take to convince the court to set aside a will?
What Undue Influence Looks Like
As stated above, there’s rarely direct evidence of undue influence, such as video or audio recordings of the influencer coercing the testator to change their will. But there are behaviors that indicate undue influence, and that’s what the court looks for.
Influencers may use force, threats, and psychological or emotional manipulation to get what they want. Isolating the testator from friends or family members is a common tactic used by influencers. Threatening to restrict visits from children, grandchildren, friends, and other loved ones is another.
In many cases, the testator is older and the influencer is younger, which can create a power imbalance. The testator may be experiencing cognitive decline that makes them more susceptible to pressures of undue influence. Or they may be dependent on the influencer for their health and well-being, relying on them for food, medication, transportation, and so on. The influencer may be a child who seeks to have the testator leave their entire estate to them and disinherit other would-be heirs, or a caregiver or other individual who is close to the testator.
Courts also look for evidence of a fiduciary relationship between the two parties, which is where one party places special trust and confidence in the other. The existence of such a relationship creates a presumption of undue influence.
Case in Point: Gunnells v Harkness
Since the evidence is typically circumstantial, and the burden of proof is on the party challenging the will, what kind of evidence is needed to prove undue influence when contesting a last will?
In a case heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in June 2019, Gunnells v. Harkness, a disinherited child successfully challenged the validity of her deceased mother’s last will on the grounds of undue influence. We’ll look at the evidence closely to see just how much was needed to convince the court that the will was invalid.
Here’s the background. Helen B. Gunnells (Helen) and her husband Aiken Arden Gunnells (Arden) were married for many years and had three children, Glenn, Cathy, and Belinda. In 2006, Helen executed a last will and testament that left her estate to her husband Arden, or, if he did not survive her, in equal parts to the three children.
In March 2013, Glenn moved in with his parents to help care for them, and in June, Arden died. Less than a month after Arden’s death, Helen executed another will, with the help of a lawyer suggested by Glenn. In contrast to the 2006 will, the 2013 will left the estate to Glenn and cut out Cathy and Belinda entirely.
Helen died the following February. Glenn applied for informal probate of the 2013 will, a process in which the estate is probated without any involvement from the court.
Challenging the Validity of the Will
In July 2014, Cathy filed a petition opposing probate of the 2013 will, arguing it was the result of undue influence. The probate court held a hearing in March 2016 in which it heard testimony from several parties. It ultimately determined that the 2013 will was indeed the product of undue influence and was voided. The 2006 will, which left Helen’s estate in equal shares to all three of her children, was reinstated.
Glenn appealed the probate court’s decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the probate court’s decision in April 2017. He appealed again, and the case was heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in June 2019.
Proving Undue Influence
In its opinion, the SC Court of Appeals cites previous cases to set the bar for undue influence:
“The undue influence necessary to invalidate a will must reach a level of force and coercion, not ‘the influence of affection and attachment’ nor ‘the mere desire of gratifying the wishes of another.’”
If you believe a family member’s will was the result of undue influence and you want to have it voided, pay attention to the amount and the type of evidence presented in this case for an idea of what it takes to successfully prove undue influence.
In this case, the evidence supporting the existence of undue influence primarily came from Helen’s brother Brantley, Helen’s close friend Carroll, and her daughters Cathy and Belinda.
Concerns about the will
- The 2013 will is substantially different from the 2006 will; while the earlier one left her estate in equal parts to all three children should her husband predecease her, the more recent one left the entire estate to one child and disinherited the other two
- Carroll stated that Helen told her she didn’t want to make a new will but said “I had no choice,” saying Glenn told her she had to
- Cathy said that on the day Helen died, Glenn said to her, “you’re going to be surprised [with] what’s in the new will. I have everything.”
- Brantley sent a letter “To Whom It May Concern” expressing concerns over the way Helen had changed, especially around Glenn, the day after Glenn applied for probate of the 2013 will
Isolation and restricted visitation
- Brantley, Carroll, Cathy, and Belinda all testified that Glenn restricted Helen’s communication and visitation. Helen stopped calling them, rarely answered the phone herself when they called her, and seemed “very hesitant” to talk once Glenn moved in.
- Brantley said he asked Helen to call Cathy because she was scheduled to have surgery soon, but Helen told Brantley that she’d have to ask Glenn, because Glenn didn’t like her talking to Cathy
- Brantley said that in a conversation about having Cathy and Belinda help with their mother’s care, Glenn told him he didn’t want his sisters at the house
- Brantley visited after Arden’s death and found Glenn had made the downstairs living room into his bedroom and had installed a video surveillance system with cameras all over the property
- Carroll said Glenn wouldn’t let her speak to Helen if he answered the phone when she called
- Carroll said Helen told her she couldn’t talk on the phone the way she could before her husband died
- Carroll said Helen told her she wanted to visit her sister in Georgia but Glenn wouldn’t take her (Helen was apparently wheelchair-bound and relied on Glenn for transportation)
- Belinda stated Glenn never told her about her father’s failing health, and that’s when she first started noticing a change in communication with her parents
- Belinda stated she received a forceful email from Glenn saying that nothing would be signed or initialized without him looking at it after she put her name and her sister’s name on the hospital visitation list when their father was sick
- Belinda went to her parents’ house after her father’s death to get the death certificate, which Glenn had put it in a plastic bag and hung it from the front door. When she knocked to come in, Glenn told her she couldn’t see their mother and after arguing, Glenn threatened to call the police on her. Cathy remembered this incident, too.
- Cathy said Glenn threatened to have her arrested for harassment if she went to see Helen
- Cathy had keys to her mother’s house that she used to get in until Glenn changed the locks and told Cathy she wasn’t welcome anymore unless he was present
- Cathy tried to call her mother several times but stated Glenn would answer, tell her she wasn’t allowed to talk to her, “laugh[,] and hang up”
One or even a few of these would likely not rise to the level of undue influence. But with all of the testimony taken together, which collectively shows a pattern of behavior on the part of Glenn with respect to his mother, the SC Court of Appeals found there was enough evidence to support undue influence and affirmed the circuit court’s decision.
It’s worth noting that the court did find evidence of a fiduciary relationship between Glenn and Helen – he had power of attorney and added his name to his mother’s bank accounts after his father died – but ultimately determined that Glenn presented evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence on these grounds.
Help with Wills, Trusts, and Estate Planning in South Carolina
A last will is one of the most important legal documents you will ever sign. This is especially true if you have a large estate and/or a complex family situation. There are things you can do when creating your estate plan to make it as solid as possible and reduce the chances of lawsuits over your estate in the future.
For help creating or amending your estate plan, call estate planning attorney Gem McDowell of the Gem McDowell Law Group. He and his associates have helped many families create the wills, trusts, powers of attorney, and other documents they need for peace of mind. Call him at his Mt. Pleasant office at 843-284-1021 today to schedule a free consultation.
What Is HEMS and What Does it Mean for Trustees?
HEMS is an acronym that stands for Health, Education, Maintenance, and Support. It’s commonly used in trusts as a way to guide and restrict the kinds of distributions that a trustee can make to a beneficiary.
Purpose and Benefits of HEMS
There are a few reasons for and benefits of HEMS.
For one, adhering to the “ascertainable standard” of HEMS can be vital for protecting the trust’s assets. For example, say a wife creates a testamentary trust that names her spouse both beneficiary and trustee upon her death. The trust may limit distributions of the assets to HEMS, which is an ascertainable standard recognized by the IRS. If the husband takes distributions that fall under one of these categories, the assets of the trust are not considered to be part of his personal estate – they belong to the trust, a separate entity – and are therefore protected from certain taxes. For this same reason, a creditor coming after the husband cannot access the trust’s assets to pay the husband’s debts.
Another benefit has to do with the trustee-beneficiary relationship, when it’s not the same person in both roles. It’s common for a beneficiary to want to draw more money from the trust while the trustee’s goal is to keep the trust as intact as possible. The HEMS standard serves to restrict the trustee from making distributions that can unnecessarily diminish the trust, while providing appropriate support for the beneficiary. By including this language in the trust, a grantor can prevent the beneficiary from having unlimited access to the trust’s assets.
Or, it can work the other way. Say that same couple from above has a trust that remains in the spouse’s control as trustee and beneficiary during his lifetime, and after his death passes to the couple’s children as beneficiaries. In this case, it’s the children who are motivated to ensure the trust remains as intact as possible. It’s in their best interest to ensure their father is adhering to the HEMS standard with the distributions he takes for himself as trustee and beneficiary.
Finally, the HEMS standard provides valuable guidance to trustees, whether they are also a beneficiary or not. By understanding what’s included under the umbrella of health, education, maintenance, and support, a trustee can better determine what distributions to make from the trust’s assets.
Examples of HEMS
Health, Education, Maintenance and Support are rather broad categories, but what do they include, exactly? The exact items included can vary by state, but here are examples of HEMS that are commonly included.
Examples of Health
Some basic examples in the Health category include:
- Routine health care
- Hospital care
- Emergency medical treatment
- Psychiatric or psychological care
- Prescription drugs
- Dental
- Vision
The following may also be considered included in this category:
- Elective procedures like LASIK or cosmetic surgery
- Alternative medicine treatments
- Gym, sports club, or spa memberships
- Health supplements
Examples of Education
This category commonly includes:
- Tuition for all levels of schooling from grammar to graduate, professional, or technical school or training
- Continuing education expenses
- Expenses for school-related programs, such as Study Abroad in college
- Support during schooling years, even during summers and other breaks
Examples of Maintenance and Support
“Maintenance” and “support” are one and the same. Commonly included in this category:
- Mortgage or rent payments
- Property taxes
- Premiums for health, life, and property insurance
- Travel and vacation expenses
- Charitable giving
This category is the least clearly defined. It’s typically interpreted to include distributions that help maintain the beneficiary’s standard of living. Distributions to cover expenses that are solely for the beneficiary’s happiness rather than support do not fall under this category.
For example, say our couple from above typically takes a two-week vacation to the Rockies each year. After the wife dies and her husband controls the trust, a distribution to cover this annual vacation would fall under this category. A distribution to cover a four-month, ‘round-the-world luxury cruise would not. That’s because such a vacation would be beyond his typical standard of living.
However, depending on the trust, the trustee may have some discretion to make distributions for just such an unusual vacation or other luxury that would be outside the beneficiary’s established standard of living.
Use of HEMS
Grantors can include general language regarding HEMS or they can be more prescriptive and precise about how they’d like the trust’s assets used. For instance, a grantor may specify that trust money can be used to pay for college but not for graduate school. Or that the beneficiary must use other sources of funds, if available, to pay property taxes or rent before accessing the trust’s money. The grantor has a large degree of control when directing how the trust’s funds can be used.
Not all trusts contain language relating to HEMS; it depends on the particulars and purpose of the trust. Whether or not it’s appropriate in your estate plan is something to discuss with an estate planning attorney.
Get Help with Trusts and Estate Planning
The HEMS standard is just one commonly used tool grantors have to direct how a trust’s assets are distributed. Trusts are powerful documents that can be a cornerstone of an estate plan. For help creating a trust, or other estate planning documents like wills, living wills, and POAs, contact the Gem McDowell Law Group. Gem and his associates will help you create the personalized plan you need so your family is cared for and your wishes are carried out. Whether you have documents that need review or updating, or it’s your first time doing estate planning for your family, Gem and his team can help. Call 843-284-1021 today to schedule a free consultation or to book an appointment at the Mount Pleasant office.
Timing Is Everything: When Powers of Attorney Aren’t Bulletproof
In the previous blog, we looked at the basics of financial and medical powers of attorney. Today, we’re going to look at how these documents are not as straightforward as you think, courtesy of a case heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Stott v White Oak Manor, Inc. (read it here).
Facts and Background
Jolly P Davis (Decedent) was taken to Spartanburg Regional Medical Center on December 22, 2012 by EMS due to dropping oxygen saturation levels. Less than two weeks later, he was transferred to White Oak Manor for rehabilitation and care. Upon admission, White Oak found that he possessed “intact mental functioning” and was able to correctly answer questions about his age, location, the current date, and so on. Over the next couple weeks, he was transferred between the two facilities several times until he died on January 16, 2013.
Leading up to this, Decedent’s niece, Hilda Stott, was named as the agent in a durable POA for finance and a durable HPOA for Decedent in documents executed May 11, 2012. (A durable POA remains in effect even when the principal is incapacitated, so the agent can make decisions when the principal is, for example, in a coma or suffering from dementia.)
When Decedent was admitted to White Oak, Stott signed papers on her uncle’s behalf, including an Arbitration Agreement. The durable POA for finance was recorded on January 8, 2013, six days after Decedent was admitted to White Oak. The durable HPOA was never recorded. (As a reminder, South Carolina law requires that a POA, but not an HPOA, be recorded with the county in order for an agent to exercise their powers after the principal becomes incapacitated.)
On December 16, 2015, Stott filed a wrongful death suit against White Oak, alleging Decedent was “overmedicated and dehydrated,” which led to his death. White Oak filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement that Stott had signed.
The Circuit Court’s Findings
The case when to the circuit court. Stott argued that even though she signed the Arbitration Agreement on behalf of Decedent, she actually did not have the authority to do so under the durable POA for finance and therefore was not bound to the Arbitration Agreement.
White Oak argued but the court ultimately sided with Stott, finding that (1) Decedent had full capacity to sign the Arbitration Agreement at the time of admission, (2) the durable POA for finance did not become effective until after the Arbitration Agreement was signed because it hadn’t been recorded in time, and (3) the durable HPOA also didn’t authorize Stott to sign the Arbitration Agreement because Decedent was competent when it was signed.
White Oak appealed.
The Effectiveness of the Durable POA for Finance
Here’s where things get rather complicated. Stott signed the Arbitration Agreement on January 2, 2013, but didn’t record the durable POA for finance until January 8, 2013. She argued that she didn’t have the authority to sign the Arbitration Agreement on Decedent’s behalf on the 2nd. But, White Oak noted, the agreement contained an opt-out clause giving the signer a limited time period in which to opt out of the agreement, after which the agreement “will remain and continue in full force and effect.” (Emphasis added by the SC Court of Appeals.) White Oak argued that because the agreement didn’t become binding until the opt-out period expired on January 19, 2013, Stott did, in fact, have the authority to sign it because by then, the durable POA for finance had been recorded – 11 days earlier.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, citing the language used in the opt-out clause. It was stated so that the party would “no longer” be bound by it, and after the opt-out window closed, it would “remain and continue” – language indicating that the agreement was in effect the entire time during the opt-out window. Therefore, because the durable POA for finance had not been recorded by the time she signed the Arbitration Agreement, Stott did not have the power to sign it on Decedent’s behalf.
The Effectiveness of the Durable HPOA
The other issue the Court looked at was whether Stott had the authority to sign the Arbitration Agreement based on a valid durable HPOA. White Oak argued that she did; the Court disagreed.
That’s because Decedent’s durable HPOA contained a provision entitled “EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURABILITY” that stated it would become “effective upon, and only during, any period of mental incompetence.” In other words, it was a springing POA, discussed in the previous blog, which only becomes effective once the principal becomes incapacitated.
White Oak’s own evaluation of Decedent found him to be mentally intact with full capacity upon admission and at the time Stott signed the Arbitration Agreement. Therefore, the Court concludes, the durable HPOA was also not effective to authorize Stott to sign the agreement on her uncle’s behalf.
In short, the Arbitration Agreement is invalid and White Oak cannot compel arbitration of Stott’s claims of wrongful death and survival actions.
Confusion and Lack of Clarity
In this case, the powers of attorney were executed well in advance of any need for them. They were both clear in their intentions, and the durable HPOA even used the language provided by statute. Neither POA was disputed. Decedent’s mental capacity was not called into question by White Oak Manor. And still, confusion occurred regarding whether the agent had authority to sign for the principal.
This case illustrates how complex matters of estate planning can be, even when they appear simple on the surface. This is why it’s so important to work with an experienced estate planning attorney like Gem McDowell to handle your estate planning. Gem has over 25 years of experience helping individuals and families with estate planning in South Carolina. Call him and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC today at 843-284-1021 to schedule a free consultation to discuss your estate planning needs.
Do You Know the Limits of Your Powers of Attorney?
The power of attorney for finance and the power of attorney for health care are two essential documents of estate planning. These documents give a person (the agent) the power to make, respectively, financial or health-related decisions on behalf of another person (the principal). If you have gone through estate planning, you may have had one or both of these documents drawn up for you. (If you haven’t done any estate planning, now is the time!)
But having these documents may give you a false sense of security. You should know the types, conditions, and limitations of powers of attorney so that if you ever need to rely on them – either as the principal or the agent – you are already informed and know what they can and can’t do.
The Powers of Financial and Health Care Powers of Attorney
A power of attorney for finance (POA) gives an agent the power to make financial decisions on behalf of the principal, such as buying or selling property including real estate, accessing bank accounts, managing investments, signing contracts, or borrowing money. The principal can decide which particular powers they want their agent to have.
Similarly, a health care power of attorney (HPOA) gives an agent the power to make health care decisions on behalf of the principal, such as which treatment plan to follow, doctors to use, medication to give, and arrangements for care. It is a type of advance directive and is called different things in different states, including medical power of attorney or healthcare proxy.
What’s the Difference Between Limited, General, Durable, and Springing Powers of Attorney?
There are different types of powers of attorney and the kind of POA that’s best for you depends on your specific goals.
Limited. A limited power of attorney gives the agent the power to act in a limited capacity and often for a specified time period. This is useful if, for example, you’ll be traveling on the day of a real estate closing, and you want your spouse or business partner to be able to sign for you, in which case you’d want a limited POA for finance. Or if you’re going under the knife and want to give your sister the power to make decisions for you relating to the operation while you’re incapacitated, you’d want a limited HPOA.
General A general power of attorney does not limit the agent’s powers to a particular task or time period, but gives them as much discretion to control and direct the principal’s affairs as the principal chooses. The powers of this type of POA last until the principal’s death or until they revoke the POA.
Durable. A durable POA is one that is in effect even when the principal is incapacitated and unable to make their own decisions, for instance, because they are under anesthesia, have dementia, or are in a coma. South Carolina also recognizes that incapacity can also be because a person is missing, detained or incarcerated, or abroad and unable to return to the U.S. If the POA is not durable, then the agent’s powers end once the principal is incapacitated.
For the HPOA, it makes sense that you’d want it to be durable, because the point of having an HPOA is for someone else to make medical decisions for you when you’re unable to. But for a POA for finance, a principal may want a limited POA to be non-durable, as in the example above where the principal is traveling during a closing. A durable POA for finance is also common between spouses, so one may make decisions for the other in the case of incapacity.
Springing. Unless stated otherwise, in South Carolina the powers in a power of attorney commence immediately. However, some people choose to have a springing POA, where the powers “spring” into effect only once the principal becomes incapacitated. So while a durable POA remains effective once the principal becomes incapacitated, a springing POA only becomes effective once the principal becomes incapacitated.
Someone may feel more secure with this type of POA because they know that their agent doesn’t have any powers to make decisions on their behalf while they have mental capacity, and therefore do something they (the principal) wouldn’t want done. The trouble with this kind of POA, however, is that it can be extremely difficult to pinpoint the moment someone becomes incapacitated, especially in cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s, where a person can have good days and bad days. This can make it impossible to effectively use the POA for its original purpose. This is why we here at the Gem McDowell Law Group do not do springing POAS for our estate planning clients.
South Carolina Requires Powers of Attorney to Be Recorded
On January 1, 2017, South Carolina’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act went into effect, requiring durable POAs to be recorded in order for the agent to exercise their powers once the principal has become incapacitated. (POAs made before this date are subject to the laws that were in effect at the time.) Note that a POA does not have to be recorded for the agent to exercise powers while the principal still has capacity.
How do you record a power of attorney? If you work with an attorney to draft your estate planning documents, they will typically do it for you. (You can ask just to be sure.) If you printed your own off the internet or otherwise didn’t go through an attorney, you may contact your county clerk for instructions on how to record your POA. It must be done so in the same manner as a deed in the county where the principal resides at the time, and may be recorded before or after the principal’s incapacity.
Do You Know What Type Your Powers of Attorney Are?
You can see that with so many different types of powers of attorney, the occasional difficulty of pinpointing when incapacity occurs, and South Carolina’s relatively new requirements for recording POAs, things can get confusing. That’s why it’s so important to review the documents you’ve signed and understand exactly what powers you, as the principal, are giving your agent and when they come into effect.
For comprehensive estate planning that is tailored to your life and the needs of your family, contact Gem McDowell and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC. They can help you draft estate planning documents including powers of attorney, wills, and trusts that will give you peace of mind and protect your family. Call to schedule a free consultation at 843-284-1021.
To Disclose or Not to Disclose? The Importance of Disclosure in Prenuptial Agreements
What are the three most important things when it comes to real estate? That’s right: Location, location, location.
Likewise, when it comes to prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, the three most important things are disclosure, disclosure, disclosure!
In pre- and postnuptial agreements, the spouses lay out terms for how assets will be divided should the marriage end in divorce. For example, the agreement may state that each spouse will leave the marriage with the same assets they entered with and anything acquired by the pair during the course of the marriage will be divided equitably, but assets can be retained or divided in any manner as long as both parties agree. Each party must disclose their assets – what they are and what they are valued at – so that the other party has full knowledge of what they are potentially waiving their rights to. They must also disclose their debts. They need to disclose what they own, if it’s of value.
Disclosure is a fundamental concept when it comes to pre- and postnuptial agreements. Yet a case that went before the South Carolina Court of Appeals calls into question the absolute necessity for full disclosure. Frankly, we do not agree with the court’s decision, but it has been upheld so we decided to look at this important case today.
Hudson v Hudson Background
This case (read it here) was heard in the SC Court of Appeals in early 2014. H. Eugene Hudson (Husband) and Mary Lee Hudson (Wife) began dating in the mid-90s and became engaged in 1999. On February 4, 2000, they entered into a prenuptial agreement (Agreement) and married a couple weeks later, on February 19, 2000. They separated in October 2018 and Husband subsequently filed for divorce.
There are a number of interesting things about this case. For one, Wife testified Husband insisted she consult a particular attorney – who was allegedly a close friend of his – and was not free to choose her own attorney. Also, the Agreement was presented to her just two weeks and a day before the wedding date when wedding preparations were in full swing and after she had already sold her car and quit her job in anticipation of getting married.
But the pertinent issue here is that Husband did not disclose everything he had an interest in. He did include his own business, Myrtle Beach Lifeguards, Inc., in the Agreement, but did not include a flea market that his family owned or a franchise fee agreement.
In family court, Husband said he didn’t include the flea market because his mother had a life estate in the flea market and he had just a remainder interest (meaning he would take control of it upon his mother’s death). As for the franchise fee agreement, he said he didn’t include it because he leased it to Myrtle Beach Lifeguards and considered it the company’s asset even though the agreement was in his name.
The family court found that the Agreement was “unconscionable” in the way that it dealt with division of the marital property and ordered that marital earnings of over half a million dollars should be split by Husband and Wife.
What Makes a Prenuptial or Postnuptial Agreement “Unconscionable”?
The case went to the SC Court of Appeals on appeal, where, among several other issues, Wife argued that Husband’s failure to disclose the flea market and the franchise fee agreement rendered the Agreement unconscionable.
In South Carolina, whether or not a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement is unconscionable is one of the tests to determine if such an agreement can be enforced. Citing a 2003 SC Supreme Court Case, Hardee v Hardee (read it here), the Court of Appeals lays out the three prongs to determine enforceability:
- Was agreement obtained through fraud, duress, or mistake, or through misrepresentation or nondisclosure of material facts?
- Is the agreement unconscionable? [emphasis added]
- Have the facts and circumstances changed since the agreement was executed, so as to make its enforcement unfair and unreasonable?
“Unconscionability,” as defined in Hardee, is “the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to one-sided contract provisions together with terms that are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them.”
The Court of Appeals stated that in this case, Husband’s failure to disclose the assets was “not substantially significant” and “did not affect the unconscionability of the Agreement.” That’s all it had to say on the subject. It reversed the lower court’s decision and therefore reversed the award to Wife.
Disclose, Disclose, Disclose Anyway
Despite the findings of the SC Court of Appeals, which we already stated we don’t agree with, we still think it’s wise to disclose all assets (and debts) when entering into a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement.
For help drafting or reviewing a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, or other estate planning needs, contact Gem McDowell and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC by calling 843-284-1021. Gem has decades of experience working with individuals and families to ensure their interests are protected so they can have peace of mind. Call today to schedule a free consultation.
Why You Don’t Want to Be a Trustee
I once saw a bumper sticker on a car that said “Smile. You Could Be a Trustee.” I thought it was great because it’s true.
Being a trustee can be a challenging, and often litigious, job. In estate planning, the role may fall to a family member or trusted friend who is typically not well versed in the law but who must now navigate the complexities of the trust’s provisions in service of the grantor’s wishes. I’ve seen many trustees become mired in litigation as they battle to follow the trust’s provisions while keeping the beneficiaries happy.
Still, if you are a current or prospective trustee, you may be willing to put up with all that. You may also believe that you can’t be held personally liable for any mistakes made in your role as trustee. Right?
Wrong. Today I want to look at a case from the South Carolina Court of Appeals, filed in April 2019, in some detail. It covers this exact topic and is a warning to any trustee out there that when he/she takes on the role, he/she is at risk.
The Background of Deborah Dereede Living Trust v. Karp
Eight months before she died, Deborah Dereede executed a revocable trust naming herself as trustee and her daughter, Courtney Feely Karp, as successor trustee. The only asset in the trust was Dereede’s home in Lake Wylie, SC, which Karp sold several months after her death, netting $356,242.86.
People with interest in the sale included Karp’s stepfather, Hugh Dereede (Hugh), and his company, Tyre Dealer Network Consultants, Inc. (Tyre).
An important provision in the trust essentially said the following:
- After Dereede’s death, sell the house “as soon as practicable”
- Proceeds from the sale should be distributed in this manner:
- First, pay off the mortgage
- Then pay off the promissory note to Tyre, which is currently $250,000
- Then half of remaining net sale to Hugh
- Finally, the remainder to the following Articles…
The Disagreement
The disagreement that took Karp to court stemmed from that provision.
After the house was sold, Hugh demanded immediate payment to himself and to Tyre, in accordance with the trust’s provision.
But Karp didn’t pay him immediately. She was also the personal representative for her mother’s estate, and she believed she could not yet distribute proceeds. She wanted to be sure of the net assets of the trust and estate and give time for creditors’ claims, if any.
Hugh filed action in probate court for declaratory judgment for immediate payment. Hugh and Karp battled over the issue but Karp still refused to pay and also claimed that by suing her, Hugh and Tyre had triggered the no-contest clause and were therefore giving up their claim to the money owed them. (Incidentally, if Hugh and Tyre did forfeit that money, it would instead go to Karp and her siblings.)
Enter the Trust Protector
After ten months of litigation, Karp appointed Catherine H. Kennedy as trust protector. A trust protector is someone who watches over the trustee as the trustee watches over the trust. In some cases, it may be an individual who actually knew the grantor (the person who set up the trust), while the trustee did not (if, for example, the trustee is a bank).
If the protector believes the trustee is not doing their job or is engaged in misconduct, they can terminate the trustee. Depending on the trust, the protector may have different powers, but this is the essential one. The role actually has its origins in offshore trusts but has become more popular in domestic trusts in recent years.
As trust protector, Kennedy reviewed Karp’s actions and determined that Karp was justified in waiting for creditors’ claims before disbursement. She further said that issues regarding the no-contest clause – whether Karp exercised good faith in bringing it up, and whether Hugh and Tyre had probable cause – should be decided by a court.
Bench Trial
After a bench trial, the court ruled that:
- Karp had breached her fiduciary trust by not distributing the proceeds of the house sale to Hugh and Tyre in a timely manner
- Hugh did have probable cause to bring the action and therefore the no-contest clause was not invoked
- Tyre was a creditor, so the no-contest clause wouldn’t have applied anyway
- Tyre and Hugh were entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, payable by Karp
Karp appealed and the case went to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. (Read its decision here.)
Good Faith Isn’t Enough to Protect a Trustee
South Carolina Trust Code says that a trustee “shall administer the trust in good faith, in accordance with its terms and purposes and the interests of the beneficiaries…” A breach of trust is “violation by a trustee of a duty the trustee owes to a beneficiary…”
Karp stated that she wanted to wait until she was certain of the net assets of the trust and estate before making disbursements. The Court of Appeals states that such a delay is “common” and “often required” in the probate of an estate, but rules are different for trusts. Also noted is that if Karp had followed the trust exactly and made the distributions quickly, she would have risked no personal liability.
Though Karp’s actions were understandable and appeared to have been done in good faith, she was nevertheless found in breach of trust. The Court of Appeals says “There is no evidence Karp acted in bad faith” and goes on to cite a District Court case, saying that good faith “counts for nothing” when it comes to breach of trust.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision and found that Karp was personally liable, as well as liable in her capacity as trustee. “Although Karp acted in good faith, a trustee is nevertheless personally liable for breach of trust.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s finding that Hugh did have probable cause, therefore the no-contest clause did not come into effect.
Think Twice Before Becoming a Trustee
If you are already a trustee, or if someone has asked you to be a trustee, consider the responsibility – and the liability – of the role. It’s easy to believe that you’re doing someone a favor and that if you’re doing your best, you can’t get into trouble. As you’ve seen illustrated in the case above, that’s not true. As a trustee, you can be held personally liable – meaning money can come out of your pocket – for your actions with respect to the trust, even if everything you do is in good faith and the courts recognize that.
For questions on creating a trust, managing a trust, or other issues of estate planning, contact estate planning attorney Gem McDowell. He and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC work with many individuals and families to create estate plans to provide peace of mind. Call today to schedule a free consultation at 843-284-1021.
Why Common Law Marriage was Just Abolished in South Carolina
Common law marriage will no longer be recognized in South Carolina. In making this determination, the Supreme Court of South Carolina joins the trend of several other states who have already put an end to the practice over the years.
This decision comes in the context of a case from family court and offers some interesting insights into the purpose of public policy and how society’s changing mores affect the law and its interpretation.
Where Did Common Law Marriage Come From?
Before we look at why it was abolished in SC, let’s look at where it came from.
Common law marriage comes from pre-Reformation Europe and arrived in the new world from England during colonization. Not all states adopted common law marriage, but the majority did at some point.
At the time, this institution made a lot of sense. America was sparsely populated, particularly in the Midwest and the West, and it was difficult to find and/or travel to religious or government officials to marry two people. It was also a way to add some legitimacy to a situation that would otherwise be seen as objectionable, e.g., living together, children out of wedlock, and women with children who might otherwise rely on the state for assistance.
However, times and situations have changed drastically, and the institution doesn’t make as much sense as it once did.
Common Law Marriage in Modern Times
In its decision (which you can read here), the Court states that “the common law changes when necessary to serve the needs of the people” and that it will act when it is “apparent that the public policy of the State is offended by outdated rules of law.”
Common law marriage is, indeed, outdated. Cohabitation before marriage, children born out of wedlock, and single mothers are widely accepted today without stigma, and rights to child support and inheritance no longer depend on marital status. Getting married legally is easy and inexpensive, and therefore there are no substantial practical barriers to marriage as there once were.
In addition, common law marriage presents some thorny problems. Namely, how do you know when you have entered into a common law marriage, since (by definition) there is no formal ceremony or documentation, and how are courts supposed to make that determination when asked? What if one party of a couple believes they are married, but the other party doesn’t? What happens when a couple like this decides to split? These issues were central in the case at hand.
Married or Not Married?
A. Marion Stone, III and Susan B. Thompson met in the 1980s and began dating. In 1987, they had a child together, and in 1989 they had a second child and began living together. For approximately twenty years following this, they lived together, raised kids, and managed rental properties. The relationship ended when Thompson discovered Stone was having an affair.
In 2012, Stone sought declaratory judgement that the two were common law married, a divorce, and an equitable distribution of alleged marital property. The family court held a trial to determine whether the two were common law married. After hearing evidence from both sides – including witness testimony on how they introduced themselves as a couple, proof of cohabitation, joint financial documents, and so on – the court concluded that Stone and Thompson were common law married starting in 1989, and so awarded over $125,000 to Stone in attorney’s fees and costs. The family court stated that the evidence showed a “presumption of marriage that could only be refuted by strong, cogent evidence they never agreed to marry.”
The South Carolina Supreme Court Disagreed
The Supreme Court disagreed, not finding the evidence as overwhelming as the family court did. Some witnesses said Stone and Thompson introduced each other as husband and wife, while others didn’t; some documents were signed jointly, others singly; and the children had their mother’s last name only until 2000, when their father’s last name was added. There was a period of time from 2005-2008 where documents were signed as though a married couple – medical documents and an application for a mortgage loan – but the Supreme Court viewed these as evidence of seeking financial benefits through the appearance of marriage, not as an indication of actual marriage.
Ultimately, common law marriage requires mutual understanding and assent. Both parties must understand what common law marriage is and express a desire for it, and understand that the other feels the same way. The Court didn’t find that this was the case with Stone and Thompson, and therefore reversed the family court’s decision (and the decision for Thompson to pay Stone’s attorney’s fees).
Prospective, Not Retrospective – and a Stronger Test
The Court notes that while it does have the power to “undo” current common law marriages, it’s reserving this right of retrospective power and its decision applies only prospectively. From the date of the Supreme Court’s decision (July 24, 2019) forward, you may only be married in South Carolina with a valid license.
At the same time, the Court took the opportunity to strengthen the test of validity of current common law marriages. “A heightened burden of proof is warranted,” which it calls an “intermediate” standard: more than a preponderance of the evidence but not to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. The “clear and convincing evidence” standard used for matters of probate “should also apply to living litigants.”
The Supreme Court states that the “right to marry is fundamental, and so is the right not to marry” so it cannot be an institution that people enter into unwittingly. Furthermore, the Court can’t “see inside the minds” of litigants, it “must yield to the most reliable measurement of marital intent: a valid marriage certificate.”
Keeping Up with Changes in the Law
Though South Carolina is following in the footsteps of other states in ridding the practice of common law marriage, this is still a big step. It’s important to remember that laws can change, as can the interpretation of them, and that these changes can have very real consequences for residents of the state.
This is especially true for estate planning when it comes to complicated family dynamics. To make sure you’re covered, work with an experienced estate planning attorney Gem McDowell. He and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in South Carolina can help you plan ahead and make sure your estate planning documents are in order. Schedule your free consultation by calling 843-284-1021.
What Makes a Will Invalid? Common Challenges to a Will’s Validity in South Carolina
We write a lot on this blog about the last will and testament. That’s because it’s an extremely important document to have, particularly when you have a large estate or a complicated family situation. It’s the only legal document that speaks for you after you’re gone to ensure your wishes are carried out with respect to your estate. But it can only do that if it’s valid.
The proliferation of fill-in-the-blank, do-it-yourself wills online may make it seem like last wills are simple documents. They can be, but they can also be a legal minefield. A number of cases having to do with the validity of a will make it as far as the South Carolina Court of Appeals or even the South Carolina Supreme Court every year. The underlying issue in these cases is almost always the same: the validity of the will.
With that in mind, today we’re going to look at a few of the most common challenges to the validity of a will in the state of South Carolina.
Procedural Errors
South Carolina code states that “An individual who is of sound mind and who is not a minor […] may make a will” with the following basic requirements for validity:
- The will must be in writing
- It must be signed by the testator, or by someone else in the testator’s name and presence
- It must be signed by at least two individuals who witness the testator’s signing or the testator’s acknowledgement of signing the will
- Amendments to a will must also be witnessed by two individuals (as we looked at in a recent blog)
An error such as a missing signature can lead to challenges of the validity of the will.
Note that South Carolina does not require a will to be notarized, as the law provides for self-proving (but it is strongly recommended). Also note that South Carolina generally accepts out-of-state wills as valid, even if the will does not meet South Carolina’s criteria, as long as it meets the requirements of the state in which it was executed.
Lack of Testamentary Capacity
South Carolina code quoted above states that the testator must be of “sound mind.” This may be surprising, but the required level of what’s called “testamentary capacity” to execute a will is relatively low. To put it in perspective, a higher level of mental competency is required to sign a contract.
In South Carolina, testamentary capacity demands that you know at a minimum two things:
- The nature and extent of your bounty (that is, what you own)
- The natural objects of your bounty (that is, your heirs and close relatives)
The presumption is that adults have the testamentary capacity to make a will. If someone challenges a will on the basis of testamentary capacity, claiming the testator was not of sound mind, it’s up to them to provide clear and convincing evidence of that fact. This may be evidence of senility, dementia, insanity, mental illness that compromises sound judgment, declining cognitive function or memory, or the like. Proof may come in the form of medical records or sworn statements by the testator’s health care providers, caretakers, or friends and family who witnessed the testator’s condition during the time in question.
Undue Influence
Another argument to challenge the validity of a will is undue influence. Undue influence occurs when a person influences or pressures the testator to change the terms of their will in the influencer’s favor. This influence takes away the testator’s free will and substitutes their own interests for those of the testator.
Undue influence may be tied together with lack of testamentary capacity, because it’s often an older person suffering from a degree of dementia or senility who is unduly influenced to change their will. The influencer may use tactics like physical force, threats, or isolation from family member and friends to get what they want.
If a will is challenged on these grounds, again, it’s up to the challenger to provide clear and convincing evidence that this is the case. (We recently touched on this issue of undue influence on a blog about no-contest clauses in wills, which you can read here.) Since undue influence can be more challenging to prove, let’s look at it more in-depth.
The Standard for Undue Influence
A recent case filed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in April 2019 looks at the issue of undue influence, as well as testamentary capacity, when the validity of a will was challenged.
In short, Vinto Willis Tucker (Decedent) died in March 2012. He executed a will in January 2012 the same evening he discovered he had suffered an aneurysm. He did so by dictating the terms of his will to his niece in the presence of two witnesses, who confirmed that he raised the subject of a will and that his niece wrote down the terms as he requested.
The will divided his estate among twelve nieces and nephews but left out one niece and two nephews. In May 2013, Decedent’s sister, Mary Jean Tucker Swiger, petitioned for formal testacy, a proceeding to establish a valid will. She asserted that Decedent’s personal representatives (the niece who had written down Decedent’s will and a nephew) had exerted undue influence on him and sought to remove them as personal representatives.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals cited South Carolina code and other cases to establish a standard of review, including the following:
“Contestants of a will have the burden of establishing undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake, revocation, or lack of testamentary intent or capacity” S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-407
“Undue influence must be shown by unmistakable and convincing evidence, which is usually circumstantial.” Russell v Wachovia (2003)
“Generally, in cases where a will has been set aside for undue influence, there has been evidence either of threats, force, and/or restricted visitation, or of an existing fiduciary relationship.” Russell v Wachovia (2003)
“A mere showing of opportunity or motive does not create an issue of fact regarding undue influence.” In re Estate of Cumbee (1999)
In the Swiger v Smith case at hand, the challenger presented no evidence of undue influence. The opinion states that “significantly,” the challenger didn’t provide any evidence that the nephew and niece restricted visitation of the challenger’s side of the family (which included the disinherited niece and nephews). The Court concluded that the challenger “failed to provide more than a scintilla of evidence to establish undue influence” and that “Decedent had the testamentary capacity to dispose of his estate.” Therefore, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Ensuring Your Will is Valid
Having a last will go through litigation is something no one wants. It’s a time-consuming process that strains and destroys family relationships, eats up the estate’s resources, and makes private family information public. The best way to avoid this is to have a valid, up-to-date will.
Work with an experienced estate planning attorney to ensure your will is valid and is worded to carry out your wishes after you’re gone. Gem McDowell and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant near Charleston, South Carolina can help you. They are experienced at handling estate planning for all kinds of estates whether they’re small, large, straightforward, or complicated. Call to schedule a consultation to discuss your estate plan. Call 843-284-1021 today.
Want to Make Changes to Your Will in South Carolina? Read This First
We’ve stressed before on this blog why it’s important to have a last will and testament and why you need to keep it up to date. Not doing so can mean that your wishes aren’t carried out, which can lead to drawn out litigation and cause strife between family members and heirs.
It’s also important to make any changes to your will in a way that is valid and legally recognized. Here’s the right way to amend your will – and what happens if you don’t.
How to Correctly Amend Your Will in South Carolina
When you make your last will and testament, South Carolina code states that it must be signed by you (or by someone else in your name, in your presence and at your direction) and two individuals who either witnessed you signing it or your acknowledgement of signing it.
If you want to revoke your will entirely, you can do that either by getting a new one that contradicts the old one or by physically destroying the old one with the intent of revoking it.
However, if you want to make changes to just a section or two, you have to amend it. This requires a codicil, which is a legal document that amends specific parts of the will but leaves the rest as is. A codicil has the same requirements as the will in order for it to be valid: your signature and the signature of two witnesses.
Handwritten Changes Don’t Count
You may wonder whether you can simply strike out a clause in your will and/or make handwritten notes in order to change it. For example, let’s say you want to give your niece $20,000 instead of $10,000, or you want to cut out your nephew entirely.
The answer is no.
A recent case, filed by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in April 2019, centered around this issue. William D. Paradeses died in January 2016, leaving a will dated October 2008. The will was submitted to the probate court and was found to contain handwritten changes. Item IV(2), which would have given Faye Greeson (Eleanor Glisson) $50,000, was struck out, with the handwritten note “Omit #2 W.D. Paradeses” next to it. This led to a disagreement between family members over whether or not the handwritten changes – which were not witnessed – were valid.
The probate court said no, and the Court of Appeals agreed. It stated that this was an attempt at a codicil but didn’t meet the standards of a properly executed codicil, and therefore was invalid. The $50,000 bequest stands.
The lesson here is simple: if you want to make changes to your will, do it by correctly executing a codicil with witnesses, ideally after consulting with an estate planning attorney.
Written Memoranda: An Exception
There is an exception worth noting here. In South Carolina, you can include language in your will that allows for written memoranda. This is a document that’s in addition to the will that doesn’t require the signature of witnesses to be valid. However, it must either be written in the testator’s handwriting or signed by the testator.
The key point is that written memoranda only allows for the dispersal of tangible personal property. For example, you may use it to leave a beloved rocking chair to your grandchild, or a cuckoo clock to your sister. You may not use written memoranda to dispose of assets like stocks, bonds, or real property (real estate).
Experienced Advice for Your Estate Plan
Whether you want to make (valid) changes to your will, update it, or you don’t yet have will at all, you can get the help you need from estate planning attorney Gem McDowell and his associates at the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant, SC. Call today at 843-284-1021 to schedule your free consultation.
What Is A No-Contest Clause and Why Have One in Your Will?
A no-contest clause, also known as an in terrorem clause, is a clause in a will or revocable trust that is intended to prevent parties from contesting the will or trust by penalizing them for doing so. For example, a no-contest clause in a will may state that any party that contests the will is barred from inheriting anything under the will. A no-contest clause is a deterrent to nuisance lawsuits and cash grabs by parties who may want to get more from the estate than the will or trust allows.
A no-contest clause can:
- Discourage years of expensive and time-consuming litigation over an estate
- Prevent bickering and strain between family members and heirs of the estate
- Keep the testator’s private details private (since private details may become public in litigation)
This is not a standard clause in most estate planning documents. It’s typically only included if the testator expects there may be some disagreement over the estate plan after their death. You may want to include one in your will or revocable trust if, for example, you have given some children a larger portion of your estate than your other children, or have disinherited a child altogether, and therefore might expect a challenge to your estate plan.
When a No-Contest Clause is Unenforceable
In general, these clauses are valid and enforceable.
But many jurisdictions have recognized certain circumstances where no-contest clauses are not valid and enforceable: If the party challenging the will or trust has probable cause. If they believe forgery is involved, or they believe the document is the result of undue influence or duress, then the no-contest clause can be held invalid and unenforceable.
A South Carolina Supreme Court case filed in 2006, Russell v Wachovia, looked at this very issue. The opinion cited a North Carolina case in which 6 of 10 children contested their deceased father’s will, citing undue influence and duress. In this case, the deceased was 90 years old when he died, had been in declining health for years, was “worn out and feeble,” and at times failed to recognize his own children. The children challenging the will also noted that two other daughters who stood to inherit a substantial amount were always present at their father’s home when they visited. The court ruled that in this case, the no-contest clause was not enforceable, as the children who contested the will had probable cause to do so. The evidence demonstrated that it was reasonable to believe their father’s estate plan may have been the product of undue influence or duress.
That was very different from the case at hand in Russell v Wachovia, in which two children filed actions to set aside their father’s will and trusts. The South Carolina Supreme Court ultimately found that the no-contest clauses were enforceable. The only evidence to support probable cause here was “strife and discord” in the family, and the fact that the two children who contested the estate plan weren’t treated as well as they believed their father intended. The Supreme Court did not find this to be probable cause to contest the estate in the first place, thus the no-contest clauses were upheld. The two children who contested the will were therefore not allowed to inherit anything under the will and trust they contested.
Creating a Strong No-Contest Clause
If you do want to add a no-contest clause to your will or revocable trust, there are a few things you can do that may strengthen its validity if your estate plan is ever contested. In Russell v Wachovia, the Supreme Court noted that the testator:
- Was in good physical and mental health when he created his estate plan, still working and taking care of himself
- Told one of his sons and his attorney that he anticipated a potential challenge to his will and trust after his death
- Asked a former law clerk of his (he was a judge) to represent his grandchildren, whom he made beneficiaries, in case of a challenge
- Visited a psychiatrist to create a record of his testamentary capacity, i.e., to certify that he was legally and mentally able to make a valid estate plan
- “And most importantly,” according to the Court, he amended his will and revocable trust to include language that explicitly barred any party contesting the documents from benefiting under them
Taken altogether, these points only helped strengthen the validity of the no-contest clauses, as they demonstrated that his estate plan was not made under duress or undue influence. The Court concluded that “If a no-contest clause cannot be upheld under these facts, such a clause would not ever be enforceable.”
Get Help Creating a Strong and Enforceable Estate Plan
Estate planning can be complex, especially if you have a substantial estate, a large or blended family, or own a business. Having a solid estate plan is the best way to ensure your wishes will be carried out and can help keep peace in the family. For help with your estate planning documents, contact the Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant. Gem McDowell and his associatess are problem solvers who can develop the estate plan you need to protect your assets and your family. Call 843-284-1021 today to schedule your free consultation.
The Ongoing Battle over the James Brown Estate
The Godfather of Soul James Brown was born in Barnwell, South Carolina in 1933 and went on to become one of the greatest figures in music of the 20th century in a career that spanned six decades. He received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and was one of the first to be inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Brown left an indelible mark on music and was a huge influence on generations of musicians that came after him.
These days, his legacy also includes a very complicated estate. Brown died on Christmas Day in 2006 at the age of 73, leaving behind assets in the millions (the exact value hasn’t been disclosed) and an estate that’s been contested ever since.
The Estate of James Brown
Brown executed a will in 2000 in South Carolina and later that year had an irrevocable trust created, too. His assets were to be divided in part among his six living children. (Brown was married four times and acknowledged nine children as his, three of whom have since died, but DNA testing has shown he fathered more children. They were not named in the will.) Another substantial part of his estate was to go into a charitable and educational trust, the I Feel Good Trust, for the benefit of children in South Carolina and Georgia.
Several lawsuits have been filed by various parties over the years, and no distributions from the estate have occurred, either to Brown’s heirs or to the intended beneficiaries of the educational trust. The New York Times published an article in early 2018 covering much of the history of fighting over Brown’s estate, which you can read here.
One lawsuit of particular interest is the one the South Carolina Court of Appeals published an opinion on in May 2019. That’s because it required the court to interpret the law de novo, or for the first time, while courts usually rely heavily on precedent in their findings.
The Background
The background to this particular lawsuit is this: Several of Brown’s children and grandchildren (referred to as the Respondents) contested the Will and Trust. In 2015, the Respondents and the Fiduciaries of the estate reached a settlement wherein each of the Respondents would receive a payment of $37,500 in return for dismissing their claims to contest the Will and Trust. Importantly, they’d retain all their other rights and the Will and Trust would not be altered by the terms of the settlement.
Before the settlement was confirmed, two of Brown’s children, Terry Brown and Darryl Brown, who had not contested the Will and Trust, opposed the settlement. After a circuit court found the settlement was just and reasonable, Terry Brown appealed.
The Findings
It’s well established in case law that it’s acceptable for the heirs of an estate to make an agreement dividing the assets among themselves in a way that’s different than the will outlines, as long they all agree to it. But the Brown estate was different, since only some of the heirs were part of the settlement, not all of them. Terry argued that under South Carolina law, all the successors must consent to and approve of a settlement, and he didn’t consent to it, so therefore the settlement should not be considered valid.
However, the Court of Appeals looked at the law (specifically, Section 62-3-912) and held that his consent wasn’t necessary. The settlement didn’t seek to alter the amount of assets any successor was entitled to under the Will, and in fact specifically preserved the Estate Plan as is.
The Court also looked at Sections 62-3-1101 and 62-3-1102 and found that his approval wasn’t necessary, either. The settlement was not binding to Terry or to any other party that was not involved in the settlement. It, again, did not impact Terry or anyone else with an interest in the estate. To quote the Court, “He will receive precisely the same thing under the Will and Trust that he would have received had Respondents never challenged the Estate plan.”
Furthermore, the Court notes that it is unable to allow a successor who’s not part of the settlement to veto the settlement when it does not affect nor bind him. “This of course we cannot do, and Appellant’s position would allow a holdout successor to force the Fiduciaries to engage in the very thing [the law] is intended to avoid: dissipating the Estate in wasteful litigation.”
Complex Estate Planning
While the estate of James Brown is particularly complicated, all estate planning requires thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and attention to detail. That’s exactly what estate planning attorney Gem McDowell and his associatess provide when you work with them on your estate plan. Not having an estate plan, or having one that’s outdated (like Brown’s), can create a plethora of problems for your heirs. Contact the Gem McDowell Law Group to schedule your free consultation and take the first step towards peace of mind. Call 843-284-1021 today.
9 Reasons You Need a Will
We all know we “should” have a will. But why, exactly? Here are 9 good reasons to have a will.
1 To Maintain Good Family Relations After You Die
The main reason to have a will is for your family. After you pass, what happens to your assets won’t matter to you, but it will matter a lot to those who survive you. Many families have been torn apart by squabbles over an estate. Family members may spend years in court, and untold money, to get what they think they’re due. Meanwhile, those relationships fall apart. This doesn’t just happen after the death of people with large estates, but those with modest estates, too. A clear, current will can prevent many of these squabbles from happening in the first place and maintain the peace.
In short, you don’t get a will for yourself. You do it for your family.
2 To Ensure Your Assets Go to a Particular Individual
The primary purpose of a will is to determine where your assets will go after your death. If you don’t decide, and die intestate (i.e., without a will), the state will decide for you. In South Carolina, if you die without a will, your assets that are subject to probate will pass to your children, your spouse, your parents, and/or your siblings, depending on your family situation. You may not want your assets to go where the state wants them to go. Having a will lets you decide.
3 To Prevent Your Assets from Going to a Particular Individual
Just as your will allows you to ensure assets are going to the individuals you want them to go to, it also allows you to keep assets from individuals you don’t want to inherit anything through your will.
There may be several reasons for doing this. Perhaps you choose not to leave anything to an individual in your will because they’ll receive other assets directly outside of your will, such as life insurance payouts, pensions, retirement accounts, real property held as joint tenancy with right of survivorship, and assets held in trust of which they are the beneficiary.
Perhaps you and your spouse have mutually agreed to leave all of your property to your children rather than each other, especially if this is not your first marriage and there are children from previous partners. (Read more about estate planning in “Brady Bunch Marriages” here.)
Other times, you may choose to disinherit a child or other dependent because of strained familial relations. This is your choice, and a legally binding document will help ensure your wishes are carried out after your death.
4 To Make One Last Donation
So far, we’ve considered how a will can help you divide assets among surviving family members. But a will allows you to leave assets to organizations, too. If you’ve supported a particular cause, charity, or church during your lifetime, you can use your will to leave one final gift. (And depending on the size of your estate, a qualified donation can help reduce taxes, too.)
5 To Appoint a Guardian of Your Minor Children
If you’re the parent of a minor child, you should have a will in order to name your child’s guardian. This is the person who would take physical custody and care of your child after you die. (This assumes that there’s not another parent who would take custody.) If you don’t decide, then the state will, and it may choose someone you don’t want raising your child.
6 To Choose Your Executor
Similarly, the court will appoint an executor or personal representative to administer your estate after you die if you don’t name one in your will. You want to choose someone competent, trustworthy, and fair to settle your estate. It’s also a smart idea to speak with this person first to get their agreement, and to list alternatives in case your first choice is unavailable or declines the position after you’re gone.
7 To Speed Up the Process
Having a will can shorten the time it takes to settle your estate for the simple fact that it’s clear what should happen to your assets. Dying without a will invites family arguments over who should get what, and these arguments can last years and ruin relationship. (See #1.)
8 To Avoid Probate Altogether
What if all your assets are in trusts, so that when you die you have no assets to your name that are subject to probate? You should still have a will, specifically what’s known as a “pour-over will.” This dictates that any assets that are not in trust at the time of your death are to be distributed to the trust. If you don’t have a pour-over will, the assets still in your name when you die that are subject to probate will go through probate.
Learn more about the probate process here in South Carolina.
9 To Minimize Estate Taxes
Smart estate planning can reduce your estate taxes. However, this is not a big concern for most people. The only people who need to take into account estate taxes when drawing up a will are people with very large estates (worth over $11,180,000, as of 2018, or double that for married couples) and people in states that impose estate tax.
If you’re in this situation, you may want more than a simple will, and should speak with an estate planning attorney about your options.
Draft or Review Your Will with Mt. Pleasant Estate Planning Attorney Gem McDowell
If you don’t have a will, hopefully the nine reasons above convinced you that you need one. Call Gem McDowell at his Mt. Pleasant office to schedule a free consultation so you can get started on your estate plan right away. Gem has over 25 years of experience in estate planning, and he’s helped individuals with estates large and small with the planning they need. Call (843) 284-1021 or use this contact form to get in touch today.
