Wilson v. Dallas Even if James Brown’s family members had good faith claims against his estate, the Attorney General did not have the authority to settle those claims by giving the claimants nearly half of Mr. Brown’s estate, creating a replacement for Mr. Brown’s charitable trust, and assuming day-to-day responsibility for the replacement trust.
Wilson v. Dallas The circuit court approved a settlement that transferred a large portion of the assets of James Brown’s estate to persons who had been specifically excluded from his will, in contravention of his stated desired.
Estate of Livingston v. Livingston Since the application for USDA subsidies must be renewed every year, the statute of limitations begins anew for each year’s subsidies.
Phillips v. Quick S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-803 is a nonclaim statute, and the discovery rule does not apply to it. Since respondent filed her claim against the decedent’s estate more than nine months after the first publication of notice to creditors, respondent’s claim was time-barred.
Eldridge v. Eldridge Where the legal remedy in this case would require a trust to serve as both plaintiff and a source of damages, the legal remedy would be impractical.
We reverse the master-in-equity’s ruling that the defendant-widow gets to keep a Hilton Head condominium that she shared with her husband, who was also plaintiffs’ father.
Estate of Gill v. Clemson University Foundation A will’s $100,000 scholarship bequest is separate from the testatrix’s subsequently created $100,000 IRA, which lists the scholarship fund as a beneficiary and passes outside the will. Clemson University is entitled to both gifts.
Gordon v. Busbee Where the wife’s power of attorney did not contain a gift-giving provision, and where the record contains no written evidence of her authorization for her husband/attorney-in-fact to make the transfers he did, the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the wife’s heirs as to any transactions involving the husband’s taking funds that were undisputedly the wife’s and transferring them into a fund solely owned by him.
We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motions.
Salerno v. Inman A testator’s attorney-in-fact/girlfriend rebutted the presumption of undue influence: there was no evidence that the power of attorney was ever used; the attorney-in-fact testified she did not know when the testator executed the power of attorney; there was no evidence that the testator did not have the opportunity to dispose of his property as he wanted; the attorney-in-fact took the testator to his lawyer’s office to revise his will in 2005...
Gordon v. Busbee Where the wife’s power of attorney did not contain a gift-giving provision, and where the record contains no written evidence of her authorization for her husband/attorney-in-fact to make the transfers he did, the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the wife’s heirs as to any transactions involving the husband’s taking funds that were undisputedly the wife’s and transferring them into a fund solely owned by him.
We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motions.
Rider v. Estate of Rider Even though, before he died, Charles Rider ordered $2,000,000 worth of securities to be transferred to the respondent-wife, the securities intermediary failed to make all the transfers before it learned of Mr. Rider’s death. Under the law of agency, the intermediary lacked authority to make the transfers after it had notice of Mr. Rider’s death.
Next Page »
