Salerno v. Inman

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Francis A.
Salerno, Appellant,

v.

Nell Inman,
Personally, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Harry W. Wilbur and
as Trustee, and Fonza Alberta Wiggins, Respondents.

Appeal From Berkeley County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-423

Submitted August 15, 2011 – Filed
September 20, 2011

AFFIRMED

P. Brandt Shelbourne and Erin E. Hill, both
of Summerville, for Appellant.

George B. Bishop, Jr., of Moncks Corner,
for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Francis
Salerno appeals the circuit court's order that affirmed the probate court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of Harry Wilbur's estate (Estate). Salerno
argues the Estate failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence that arose
out of the fiduciary relationship between Harry Wilbur and Fonza Alberta
Wiggins created by Wilbur's power of attorney.  We affirm.[1]

Generally, a presumption
exists that a will was executed without undue influence.  Hembree v. Estate
of Hembree, 311 S.C. 192, 194, 428 S.E.2d 3, 4 (Ct. App. 1993).  Thus,
a person contesting a will has the burden of proving undue influence in order
to invalidate a will.  Id.  "Undue influence must be shown by
unmistakable and convincing evidence . . . ."  Russell v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A.,  353 S.C. 208, 217, 578 S.E.2d 329, 333 ( 2003).  "The
evidence must show that the free will of the testator was taken over by someone
acting on testator's behalf."  Id.   Undue influence is also
demonstrated where the testator does not make decisions by his own judgment or
volition, but rather under the direction of the influencer.  Id. 
However, "[t]he mere existence of influence is not enough to void a will;"
instead, the influence "must destroy free agency and amount to force and
coercion."  Hembree, 311 S.C. at 196, 428 S.E.2d at 5.  

The existence of a fiduciary
relationship creates a presumption of undue influence.  Hairston v. McMillan,
387 S.C. 439, 447, 692 S.E.2d 549, 553 (Ct. App. 2010).   "A
confidential or fiduciary relationship exists when one imposes a special
confidence in another, so that the latter, in equity and good conscience, is
bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interest of the one
imposing the confidence."  In re Estate of
Anderson, 381 S.C. 568, 574, 674
S.E.2d 176, 180 (Ct. App. 2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).  A
power of attorney also creates a fiduciary relationship.  Id.  Thus, if
a fiduciary relationship exists, "the proponents of the will must offer
rebuttal evidence" of the presumption of undue influence.  Hairston,
387 S.C. at 447, 692 S.E.2d at 553.  However, the burden does not shift to the
proponents of the will to "affirmatively disprove the existence of undue
influence."  Id.  Instead, the burden of proof to invalidate the
will remains with the contestants of the will.  Id.

We find the circuit court
properly affirmed the probate court's decision granting summary judgment in
favor of the Estate because no genuine issue of material fact existed
concerning the undue influence claim.  See Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing
summary judgment is appropriate when "no
genuine issue as to any material fact" exists and "the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law").  The Estate presented sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumption of undue influence. Although a fiduciary relationship existed
between Wilbur and Wiggins due to Wilbur's power of attorney, no evidence
existed showing it was ever utilized.  See In re Estate of Anderson, 381 S.C. at 574, 674 S.E.2d at 180 (finding the Estate
properly rebutted a presumption of undue influence despite the existence of a
fiduciary relationship created by a power of attorney because no evidence
existed showing that the power was ever utilized).   Here, Wiggins testified
she did not know when Wilbur executed the power of attorney.  Wiggins also
explained that Wilbur did not use the power of attorney when he transferred the
title of a 2006 Kia Optima into her name.   Furthermore, no additional evidence
was presented to indicate Wiggins ever utilized the power of attorney.

Moreover,
no evidence existed indicating Wilbur did not have the opportunity to dispose
of his property as he wanted.  Wiggins acknowledged she took Wilbur to his
lawyer's office to revise his will in 2005, but she explained she did not
participate in the revision of Wilbur's will.  Wiggins also explained she did
not know where Wilbur got his money.  Additionally, Salerno stated he believed
Wilbur was in good health and capable of getting around by himself before his
death and Wilbur never contacted him concerning a need to get away from
Wiggins.  Salerno also acknowledged the only information he had available
concerning his undue influence claim is that his relationship with Wilbur
declined after Wiggins began dating him.  He also admitted Wilbur had prepared
a number of wills since the September 1998 will. 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY,
JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.