Trusts & Estates – Civil Practice – Summary Judgment – Estoppel – Movants’ Affidavits

The affidavits in support of respondents’ summary judgment motion did not set forth facts supporting the elements of equitable estoppel or estoppel by deed; consequently, appellant’s failure to respond with affidavits of his own did not entitle respondents to summary judgment on these grounds.

We reverse summary judgment for respondents. Remanded.

Background

In 1981, the lifetime beneficiary and the trustee of a family trust amended the trust, changed the division of the trust’s real property and deeded the land accordingly. In 2017, the lifetime beneficiary died, and appellant – a residuary beneficiary and deed grantee – filed this action (1) challenging the lifetime beneficiary’s (i.e., his mother’s) authority to modify the trust and (2) asking the probate court to set aside the 1981 deeds to his siblings.

The respondent-siblings, including the trustee, filed a summary judgment motion supported by affidavits. They argued that appellant’s claims were barred by estoppel and estoppel by deed. Appellant responded with a brief but did not file affidavits in opposition to his siblings’ motion.

The probate court granted summary judgment, finding that “no Affidavit in opposition to the Motion was filed by or on behalf of [appellant]” and that the court found no genuine issues of material fact. The circuit court affirmed.

Discussion

Estoppel cannot exist if the knowledge of both parties is equal and nothing is done by one to mislead the other. Respondents’ affidavits allege appellant never complained to them and continued to pay taxes on lot deeded to him, which we do not perceive to be false representation or concealment. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in affirming the probate court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of equitable estoppel.

Estoppel by deed precludes a party to a deed from asserting as against the other any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it. However, appellant was not a party to the deeds he challenged. Therefore, the circuit court erred by affirming the probate court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of estoppel by deed.

We are concerned because it appears that both the probate court and the circuit court switched the burden of proof to appellant by requiring him to provide facts to disprove respondents’ affirmative defenses. Failing to file an affidavit alone does not dispose of a summary judgment motion. Moreover, the circuit court erred by finding the probate court had no information to deny the summary judgment motion.

Additionally, because appellant was only able to respond to the defenses of equitable estoppel and estoppel by deed at summary judgment, this court declines to rule on other equitable principles—such as the doctrine of laches—in order to give him a full opportunity to be heard. Thus, we remand to the probate court for further proceedings as it deems necessary.

Reversed and remanded.

Robinson v. Robinson (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-003-23, 9 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Kershaw County Circuit Court (Robert Hood, J.) Robin Alley for appellant; Moultrie Burns and Leonard Jordan for respondents. S.C. App. Unpub.