Trusts & Estates – Removed PR – Tort/Negligence – James Brown Estate 

After appellant was removed as personal representative of the James Brown estate, respondents sued her for several torts based on, among other things, (1) appellant’s request for millions of dollars for services provided in a short amount of time and (2) appellant’s sale and attempted sale of iconic assets from the estate and the use of a large portion of the sale proceeds to pay appellant’s own attorneys’ fees. We agree with the circuit that the majority of appellant’s counterclaims are collaterally estopped because of separate litigation upholding her removal for cause, in which appellant had notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, appellant’s forecast of evidence does not support her counterclaims of civil conspiracy, abuse of process, fraud or tortious interference with contractual relations. 

We affirm summary judgment for respondents on appellant’s counterclaims. We dismiss the appeal of the circuit court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss. 

On appellant’s second attempt to appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss, we note again that the order denying appellant’s motion does not establish the law of the case, affect a substantial right or prevent appellant from raising her defenses at an appropriate stage of the litigation. 

Bauknight v. Pope (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-020-22, 10 p.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Richland County Circuit Court (Doyet Early & Case Manning, JJ.) Charles Carpenter, Adam Tremaine Silvernail, Daryl Williams and William Jeffrey Smith for appellant; Kenneth Wingate, Mark Gende, Aaron Jameson Hayes and Everett Augustus Kendall for respondents. S.C. App. Unpub.