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.
Unintended Consequences: What Happens When You Don’t Do Things Right
Following procedure is important when it comes to the law.
This may go without saying, yet you’d be surprised at what sometimes happens, and what the consequences of failing to follow procedure can be.
This point is well illustrated by a recent case decided by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Forfeited Land Commission v. Eartha Dean Moody Beard. (PDF here)
Error 1: Heirs Failed to Submit the Estate for Probate
In 2005, Willis Thompson passed away. He left his home in Bamberg County, South Carolina to Coretta McMillan and his two other grandchildren.
But after his death, the estate was never submitted to probate.
As a quick refresher, probate is the process after a person’s death in which outstanding taxes and debts are settled and assets are transferred to heirs. (Learn more about what probate is and whether you should try to avoid probate here on the blog.)
Since Willis’s estate did not go through probate, the deed to his home was never put in his grandchildren’s names, and he remained the owner of record long after his death.
Error 2: A Notice of Levy Was Not Properly Posted
After her grandfather’s death, McMillan paid property taxes on the home in 2005. However, due to the fact that she didn’t alert Bamberg County that Willis had died and never provided an alternative address to receive tax notices, she didn’t receive any delinquent tax notices for the property in 2006.
When the notices were returned undelivered and stamped “Deceased,” Bamberg County then referred the property over to the Delinquent Tax Office to post a notice of levy on the property and put it up for a tax sale.
The Circuit Court and Court of Appeals later found that the tax office did not follow procedure when it came to posting the notice of levy on the residence. The notice is brightly colored and highly visible, yet there was testimony that the notice was never seen posted on the home. Also, the delinquent tax collector for the office testified that there was nothing in the tax office’s file to indicate that there had been a witness to the posting of the notice, as is procedure.
What Happened Next (The Lawsuits)
The facts of this case are convoluted, but in short, the home was sold to the Forfeited Land Commission (“FLC”) (a county commission that exists to bid on property at tax sales not otherwise sold) and then ended up in the hands of Ralph Johnson, who purchased 38 other properties from the FLC at the same time. Meanwhile, McMillan had paid some of the property taxes for certain years and had also gotten a tenant for the house, unaware that it did not belong to her.
With many players in this story, there were many lawsuits and counterclaims, but it’s not relevant to go into detail about them. The one at hand was heard by the South Carolina Court of Appeals in October 2017 after appearing before the Circuit Court in September 2014.
The Courts’ Findings
The Circuit Court found that McMillan had waited too long – more than four years – to challenge the sale to Johnson. The statute of limitations is two years, which the Circuit Court found was triggered by Johnson’s action to evict McMillan’s tenant from the house in January 2010.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. It found that McMillan’s challenge to the sale of the home was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations because the tax sale was void. It was void because the tax office was not in “strict compliance” with statute, as it had failed to provide the required notice of levy. Because the tax sale was void, the two-year statute of limitations never ran.
The decision reversed the finding that McMillan was barred from setting aside Johnson’s tax deed and remands the case back to the Circuit Court to determine if Johnson is entitled to any amount.
Where This Leaves McMillan
McMillan did win this case but the matter isn’t over for her. It’s been four years since the first trial and 13 years since the death of her grandfather, yet she still does not own the home her grandfather intended to give her after his death. This entire situation could have been avoided by following procedure and putting her grandfather’s estate through probate shortly after his death.
For Important Matters, Work with an Experienced Attorney
When it comes to matters of estate planning, procedure is vitally important, and skipping a step or making an inadvertent mistake can be costly in terms of time and money. It’s smart to work with an attorney experienced in estate planning who can guide you through the process and make sure procedure is being followed.
If you’re looking for help with estate planning in South Carolina, contact Gem and his associatess at Gem McDowell Law Group in Mt. Pleasant, SC. Gem and his associatess help individuals and families plan their estates with foresight and intelligence to avoid problems in the future. Call today to schedule an initial consultation at 843-284-1021.
The #1 Mistake People Make With Trusts
Trusts are wonderful tools for financial planning and estate planning. There are many, many kinds of trusts, each with its own purpose, pros, and cons. Trusts may be used to, among other things, avoid certain taxes, avoid probate, leave specific assets to an individual or organization, or pay for life insurance.
However, it doesn’t matter what kind of trust it is when it comes to the biggest mistake we see people make with trusts. That mistake: not putting anything into the trust.
The Basics Of Trusts
This can happen when people don’t understand what a trust fundamentally is.
A “trust” is an arrangement between three parties where the “trustor” (also called a “trustmaker,” “grantee,” or “settlor”) gives ownership of certain assets to a “trustee” for the benefit of a “beneficiary.” (Note that there may be more than one trustee and/or more than one beneficiary, according to the terms of the trust.)
The key point here is that the trustor gives up ownership of assets that go into the trust. This does not happen automatically upon signing the documents that create trust. The trustor must do it separately. Ideally, the estate planning attorney who draws up the trust will provide explicit instructions on what to do next and how to transfer assets, but that doesn’t always happen.
To transfer assets into the trust, the trustor signs over the deed of their house, title of their car, stocks and bonds, bank accounts, and any other selected assets to the trust. Which assets go in the trust depend on what the objective of the trust is. If the purpose is to avoid probate, then everything should go in the trust. If the purpose is to provide some money for the grandchildren over several years, for example, a selection of securities might be enough.
What Can Go Wrong
If someone does make this mistake, and fails to transfer ownership of assets from themselves to the trust they created, it can and likely will cause unintended consequences.
Imagine an adult child whose father said he had created a trust in order to avoid probate. Upon the father’s death, the child discovers that the trust was never funded. Everything is still owned in the father’s name at the time of his passing. Now the estate will pass through probate and, depending on the size of the estate, may be subject to estate taxes that could have been avoided. This is just one example, but there are many other ways an unfunded trust can cause unexpected problems.
Avoid This Mistake and Others With Guidance From Experienced Attorneys
Trusts are complex. For help creating trusts and understanding how they fit into your overall estate plan, call Gem McDowell Law Group. Gem is an estate planning and business attorney with over 20 years of experience helping individuals and families plan for the future. Contact Gem at the Mt. Pleasant office at (843) 284-1021 or use this contact form to get in touch and schedule a consultation today.
Should Your Estate Go Through Probate? Why or Why Not?
Last time we cleared up confusion around probate in South Carolina and looked at what probate is and isn’t.
If there’s one thing people do know about probate, it’s that they want to avoid it when the time comes. But is that really the best advice for everyone? Let’s look at the common reasons why people work to avoid probate, and why it may not be worth the effort to avoid probate after all.
Avoiding The Cost Of Probate
By avoiding probate, you avoid the associated costs. In South Carolina, the cost of probate as of 2017 is:
$1,845 for the first $1,000,000
$2,500 for every $1,000,000 thereafter
For an estate worth $2 million, for example, the total cost of probate would be $4,345, while an estate worth $10 million would have a fee of $24,345. Many people choose to avoid probate to skip paying these fees.
What to consider: Keep in mind that it can be costly to set up an estate plan that keeps assets out of probate in the first place. For smaller estates, it may not be worth it.
Maintaining Privacy
When a will is filed with the probate court, it becomes a public document. In contrast, the details of an estate handled through a trust do not become public.
What to consider: Most people do not need to worry about this. Public figures facing curiosity and business owners wanting to keep company financial info private may have a valid reason for concern, but for most people this is a non-issue.
Making Disbursements To The Heirs More Quickly
Making sure heirs get their inheritances more quickly is another reason people choose to avoid probate. Theoretically, the trustee of a living trust can begin disbursements to heirs immediately upon death. In practice, trustees will ensure that the estate’s debts and taxes are paid before disbursing money to heirs. Whether this actually means beneficiaries get their money more quickly depends on the situation.
What to consider: Estates passing outside probate are subject to creditors’ claims for three years compared to just eight months given to creditors through the probate process. This increases the chance that a creditor will make a claim after disbursements have been paid out from the trust, which can lead to lawsuits against the trustee and/or beneficiaries. The shortened time creditors have to make a claim is an advantage of going through probate.
Is Your Estate Set Up To Pass Through Probate or Avoid Probate?
Estate planning is complex. Laws change and family situations change, making old estate plans obsolete or imprudent. It’s difficult to know the long-reaching consequences of estate planning unless you speak with an experienced estate planning attorney like Gem McDowell of Gem McDowell Law Group. He don’t just provide wills and trusts, but the insight and advice from years of experience on the real-world consequences of estate plans. Call Gem today at their Mount Pleasant office at (843) 284-1021 or use this contact form to set up a consultation.
Clearing Up Confusion About Probate in South Carolina
Updated 11/27/2022
For some people, “probate” is a dirty word. Much of this attitude comes from not understanding the process, so let’s clear up the confusion.
What Probate Is and What Probate Isn’t
There are some myths out there about probate, so here’s what it’s not: Probate is not a way for the government to take the estate of someone who dies without a will. Probate is not a way to avoid any applicable estate taxes. Probate does not take many years (except in rare cases).
Probate is simply a process, overseen by the court, in which a person’s estate is settled. It’s a way for ownership of assets to be transferred from the decedent to other people and for final taxes and debts to be paid.
For an estate to go through probate, no estate planning is required. A person’s estate can pass through probate whether they died without a will or with one, as long as it has assets that are subject to the process.
For an estate to avoid probate, the deceased must own no assets subject to probate at the time of death. A common way to do this is to put all those assets in a living trust (an inter vivos trust), which stays in someone’s name and control during their lifetime and immediately passes to the named successor trustee upon death. The assets owned by the trust are not subject to probate.
What’s subject to probate and what’s not?
Assets subject to probate in SC include:
- Real estate held as a tenant in common
- Property owned solely in the deceased’s name
- Interest in a partnership, corporation, or LLC
Assets not subject to probate in SC include:
- Real estate held as a joint tenancy with right of surviorship
- Retirement accounts with named beneficiary
- Insurance accounts with named beneficiary
- Pension plan distributions
- Assets held in a trust
- Assets that are payable-on-death or transfer-on-death
Now that we know what probate is and isn’t, let’s look at the process.
The Probate Process in South Carolina
The probate process consists of a series of steps:
1. Deliver the will at death. Someone in possession of the deceased’s will must deliver it within 30 days to the judge of the probate court, or to the personal representative named in the will, who will then deliver it to the judge.
2. Personal representative is appointed. This person is typically named in the will and is officially appointed by the court.
3. Notice to intestate heirs is sent. Heirs can contest if they aren’t named or are treated differently.
4. Inventory and appraisement of the estate. This must be filed within 90 days of the opening of the estate. Professional appraisers may be needed to provide the values at the date of death for assets like homes, art, and jewelry.
5. Final accounting. This involves paying applicable taxes, outstanding debts, and ongoing expenses while settling the estate, such as legal and accounting fees. If there’s not enough money in the estate to pay all debts owed, creditors will be paid in order of priority according to South Carolina code (as described in Section 62-3-805).
6. Disbursements. If there’s money left over after debts and taxes are paid, distributions may finally be made to the heirs according to the will, or, if there is no will, according to the state.
7. Close the estate. The personal representative files a number of documents with the court after the above steps have been completed, and the estate is finally closed when the court issues a Certificate of Discharge.
Probate Fees in South Carolina
An estate going through probate is subject to probate fees as laid out in South Carolina Code Section 8-21-770. Fees are based on the gross value of the decedent’s probate estate and are set/calculated as follows:
| Gross Value of Probate Estate | Fees |
| Less than $5,000 | $25.00 |
| $5,000-$20,000 | $45.00 |
| $20,000.00-$60,000 | $67.50 |
| $60,000.00-$100,000.00 | $95.00 |
| $100,000.00-$600,000.00 | $95.00 plus 0.15% of the property valuation between $100,000 and $600,000 |
| $600,000 or higher | $95.00 plus 0.15% of the property valuation between $100,000 and $600,000 plus ¼ of 1% (0.25%) of property valuation above $600,000
= $845 plus ¼ of 1% (0.25%) of property valuation above $600,000 |
Here’s a table with sample probate fees calculated based on the value of the estate:
| Gross Value of Probate Estate | Fees |
| $150,000 | $170.00
$95.00+(0.0015*($150,000-$100,000)) = $95.00+$75.00 = $170.00 |
| $300,000 | $395.00
$95.00+(0.0015*($300,000-$100,000)) = $95.00+$300.00 = $395.00 |
| $500,000 | $695.00
$95.00+(0.0015*($500,000-$100,000)) = $95.00+$600.00 = $695.00 |
| $750,000 | $1,220.00
$845+(0.0025*($750,000-$600,000)) = $845+$375 = $1,220 |
| $1,000,000.00 | $1,845.00
$845+(0.0025*($1,000,000-$600,000)) = $845+$1,000 = $1,845 |
| $3,000,000 | $6,845.00
$845+(0.0025*($3,000,000-$600,000)) = $845+$6,000 = $6,845 |
| $10,000,000 | $24,345.00
$845+(0.0025*($10,000,000-$600,000)) = $845+$23,500 = $24,345 |
How Long Does Probate Take in South Carolina?
How long it takes an estate to go through the probate process depends on a number of things, including:
- Whether the deceased had a valid will or not
- How large and complex the estate is
- Whether the will is contested
- Whether lawsuits are filed
- How efficient the personal representative is
Under good conditions, a relatively simple estate can take approximately a year from open to close. More complex cases will take longer.
(Note that “small estates,” which contain no real property and total less than $25,000 in value, may qualify for a summary administrative procedure, a quicker and cheaper process than the regular probate process. A small estate can be settled in a matter of a few days or weeks.)
Is It a Good Idea to Avoid Probate?
Now that you know more about probate in South Carolina, you may be wondering whether it’s smart to approach estate planning with the intent of avoiding probate altogether. There are many things to consider, so that’s the subject of the next blog.
For help with your estate plan, contact Gem McDowell Law Group in Mount Pleasant. Contact Gem today at (843) 284-1021 to set up a consultation.
The Statute of Elizabeth: What You Need to Know About Transferring Assets
What if you owed someone a lot of money, but you didn’t want to pay them back? You might try to put your assets somewhere they couldn’t be touched; for example, you might gift them to a person you trust, or transfer them to an LLC.
Fortunately for your creditor, and unfortunately for you, you won’t get away with this scheme if your intention is to avoid paying your debts.
Moving assets in the way described above is referred to as “fraudulent conveyance,” after the Fraudulent Conveyances Act of 1571, aka the Statute of 13 Elizabeth.
The Statute of Elizabeth
The Fraudulent Conveyances Act, as it’s properly known, was an English act of 16th Century Parliament that many U.S. states adopted early on. Most states have since adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act (UFCA) or, more commonly, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA).
The purpose of the Statute of Elizabeth is to provide a way for creditors to “undo” asset transfers of their debtors when the transfers were done so fraudulently. According to South Carolina Code, “every gift, grant alienation, bargain, transfer, and conveyance of lands… for any intent or purpose to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, and forfeitures must be deemed and taken… to be clearly and utterly void…”
How does the court know whether the transfer was, indeed, done fraudulently? If the transferor denies fraud (as you’d expect), the court can look for these “badges of fraud”:
- Insolvency or indebtedness of transferor
- A lack of consideration for the conveyance
- A relationship between the transferor and transferee
- Pending litigation or threat of litigation
- Secrecy or concealment
- Departure from usual method of business
- Transfer of debtor’s entire estate
- Reservation of benefit to the transferor
- Retention by the debtor of possession of the property
The court will look for a number of badges of fraud; one alone does not create a presumption of fraud.
If the court does find that the conveyance was fraudulent, it can be “undone,” giving the creditor recourse for collecting on its debt.
A recent South Carolina case on the Statute of Elizabeth
The South Carolina Court of Appeals heard a case on this very subject and decided in the case in February. Here’s what happened.
Kenneth Clifton borrowed $3.873 million from First Citizens Bank
Kenneth Clifton was a successful real estate developer who frequently bought land as investment properties and transferred them to LLCs. He purchased one property with Linda Whiteman in 1995, a piece of land in Laurens County, SC of approximately 370 acres, which they said was for retirement.
Clifton also regularly borrowed money to finance his purchases. He took out three loans from First Citizens Bank to finance three separate investments, totaling an initial loan amount of $3.873 million, and renewed them several times.
Around the time that the housing bubble burst, Clifton requested extensions on the loans, which the bank granted after he provided a personal financial statement demonstrating his ability to pay them back. His personal financial statement put the value of the assets he held at around $50 million, including a 50% stake in the Laurens County property valued at $1.57 million.
Clifton transferred away his interest as the bank came for its money
Before receiving an extension on the third loan, Clifton didn’t tell the bank that both he and Whiteman transferred their interests in the Laurens County property to Park at Durbin Creek (PDC), an LLC that Clifton had an interest in.
When the bank asked Clifton to come current with interest payments and provide more collateral before extending the loans again, he didn’t, and the bank began foreclosing proceedings, getting a deficiency judgment of $745,317.86 plus interest.
Meanwhile, Clifton disassociated himself from PDC and transferred his membership in it to Streamline, a company that did not yet exist and was comprised of his two daughters and ex-wife.
When the bank tried to collect on the judgment, it couldn’t, as all the assets listed in Clifton’s personal financial statement had been foreclosed on, transferred away to cover other debts, or otherwise disposed of. The bank filed suit against Clifton, citing the Statute of Elizabeth.
Fraudulent or not?
After a one-day, nonjury trial, the Circuit Court issued an order to set aside the conveyance of the Laurens County property to PDC; the conveyance of his 50% interest in the property was null and void, pursuant to Statute of Elizabeth. (The Court found many other issues with the transfer of interests to Streamline, as well.)
Clifton denied having transferred the land fraudulently, but the Court found that sufficient badges of fraud existed – six out of the nine listed above, to be exact.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s findings.
Asset protection the right way
Let’s look again at the badges of fraud:
- *Insolvency or indebtedness of transferor
- A lack of consideration for the conveyance
- A relationship between the transferor and transferee
- *Pending litigation or threat of litigation
- Secrecy or concealment
- Departure from usual method of business
- Transfer of debtor’s entire estate
- Reservation of benefit to the transferor
- Retention by the debtor of possession of the property
The two marked with an * are key. If someone knows they owe money they must pay back soon but can’t, or even if they don’t owe any money but could reasonably expect a lawsuit coming their way, then transferring away assets can look suspicious.
However, asset protection is important, and there are ways to do it correctly. This is when it’s vital to talk to an attorney with experience in estate planning. Gem McDowell of the Law Offices of Gem McDowell is a corporate, tax, and estate planning lawyer with 25 years of experience helping people grow and protect their assets. Call him at their Mount Pleasant office at (843) 284-1021 or by filling out this contact form online.
