Still v. Vaughn

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

Henry David Still, V, Appellant,

v.

Barbara Wrenn Vaughn, personal representative of the
Estate of Barbara B. Still, and personal representative of
the Estate of Henry David Still, IV, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000500

Appeal From Barnwell County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-399
Heard November 10, 2020 – Filed November 10, 2021

AFFIRMED

Forrest Truett Nettles, II, of Rosen Hagood, LLC, of
Charleston, for Appellant.

Richard B. Ness, Alison Dennis Hood, and Richard
Aaron Ness, all of Ness & Jett, LLC, of Bamberg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Henry David Still, V (Son) appeals the circuit court's dismissal
of his action to contest his mother's will, arguing (1) section 62-1-302(a) of the
South Carolina Code (Supp. 2020) provides an exception to the probate court's
exclusive jurisdiction, such that the circuit court could adjudicate his claims and
(2) Rule 82, SCRCP, required the circuit court to transfer the case to the probate
court, rather than dismiss it. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On September 17, 2015, Barbara B. Still (Mother) died; Henry David Still, IV
(Father) subsequently filed her will in the probate court on September 30, 2015.
On January 6, 2016, Father filed an application for informal probate of Mother's
estate.

On February 3, 2016, Son filed an action in circuit court against Father and
Mother's estate to invalidate five deeds Mother purportedly executed in August
2015 and to invalidate Mother's "fraudulent will" probated by Father (the Original
Case). On March 24, 2016, Father answered, denying the allegations of the
complaint and asserting Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, as an affirmative defense.

In August 2016, Father died, and Barbara Wrenn Vaughn (Granddaughter) was
appointed personal representative of both Father's and Mother's estates.
Granddaughter was subsequently substituted for Father in this action.

On June 5, 2017, Granddaughter moved for summary judgment in the Original
Case, which the circuit court denied. On August 4, 2017, Granddaughter filed a
motion to reconsider and raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

On July 11, 2017, Son filed a petition for formal probate of Mother's estate. On
July 13, 2017, Son filed a petition and complaint in probate court against Cynthia
Boots and Granddaughter for formal probate of a missing will, alleging Mother
executed a prior valid will contradicting the "fraudulent" will Father filed in the
informal probate of Mother's estate. The probate court removed this case to circuit
court (the Removed Case). On September 22, 2017, Granddaughter moved for
summary judgment in the Removed Case, asserting it was untimely under section
62-3-108(A)(2)(c) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2020).1

1
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this section: . . . . (c) a proceeding to
contest an informally probated will and to secure appointment of the person with
legal priority for appointment in the event the contest is successful may be
commenced within eight months from informal probate or one year from the
decedent's death, whichever is later." § 62-3-108(A)(2)(c).
On November 6, 2017, the circuit court held a hearing on the motion to reconsider
its denial of summary judgment in the Original Case and Granddaughter's motion
for summary judgment in the Removed Case. Son conceded, "I agree with the
Court. You know, it might be a clean way to resolve all this, just dismiss [the
Removed Case] and let's go forward on [the Original Case], the 2016 case which,
was timely filed." The circuit court stated, "All right. I will grant the summary
judgment as to [the Removed Case]. I will now hear your motion to reconsider my
denial of summary judgment on [the Original Case]." By Form 4 order filed
November 6, 2017, the circuit court granted Granddaughter's summary judgment
motion in the Removed Case, finding "the claim was not timely filed."

By order filed December 6, 2017, the circuit court granted summary judgment to
Granddaughter on Son's will contest action (the Original Case), finding the circuit
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter. On December 12, 2017,
Son moved to reconsider. The circuit court denied Son's motion by order dated
February 22, 2018.

Standard of Review

"Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de
novo." Deborah Dereede Living Tr. dated Dec. 18, 2013 v. Karp, 427 S.C. 336,
346, 831 S.E.2d 435, 441 (Ct. App. 2019).

I. Jurisdiction

Son's appellate counsel argues section 62-1-302(a) provides an exception to the
probate court's exclusive jurisdiction and thus, the circuit court had subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate Son's Original Case. Son further contends section 62-3-
804(3) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2020), governing the presentation of
claims for payment against an estate, allowed him to file the will contest in circuit
court. We disagree.

"Subject matter jurisdiction is 'the power to hear and determine cases of the general
class to which the proceedings in question belong.'" Gantt v. Selph, 423 S.C. 333,
337, 814 S.E.2d 523, 525 (2018) (quoting Dove v. Gold Kist, Inc., 314 S.C. 235,
237–38, 442 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1994)). "The judicial power shall be vested in a
unified judicial system, which shall include a Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals,
a Circuit Court, and such other courts of uniform jurisdiction as may be provided
for by general law." S.C. Const. art. V, § 1. "The Circuit Court shall be a general
trial court with original jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, except those cases
in which exclusive jurisdiction shall be given to inferior courts, and shall have such
appellate jurisdiction as provided by law." S.C. Const. art. V, § 11.

The probate court is not a constitutional court; thus, its subject matter jurisdiction
is defined by statute. Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. 160, 169, 712 S.E.2d 408, 412 (2011).
The Probate Code provides:

To the full extent permitted by the Constitution, and
except as otherwise specifically provided, the probate
court has exclusive original jurisdiction over all subject
matter related to:

(1) estates of decedents, including the contest of
wills, construction of wills, determination of
property in which the estate of a decedent or a
protected person has an interest, and determination
of heirs and successors of decedents and estates of
protected persons, except that the circuit court also
has jurisdiction to determine heirs and successors
as necessary to resolve real estate matters,
including partition, quiet title, and other actions
pending in the circuit court . . . .

S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-302(a)(1) (Supp. 2020) (emphasis added). However, some
matters may be removed to the circuit court:

(d) Notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction of the
probate court over the foregoing matters, any action or
proceeding filed in the probate court and relating to the
following subject matters, on motion of a party, or by the
court on its own motion, made not later than ten days
following the date on which all responsive pleadings
must be filed, must be removed to the circuit court and in
these cases the circuit court shall proceed upon the matter
de novo:

(1) formal proceedings for the probate of wills and
for the appointment of general personal
representatives;
(2) construction of wills;

(3) actions to try title concerning property in which
the estate of a decedent or protected person asserts
an interest;

(4) matters involving the internal or external
affairs of trusts as provided in Section 62-7-201,
excluding matters involving the establishment of a
"special needs trust" as described in Article 7;

(5) actions in which a party has a right to trial by
jury and which involve an amount in controversy
of at least five thousand dollars in value; and

(6) actions concerning gifts made pursuant to the
South Carolina Uniform Gifts to Minors Act,
Article 5, Chapter 5, Title 63.

(e) The removal to the circuit court of an action or
proceeding within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
probate court applies only to the particular action or
proceeding removed, and the probate court otherwise
retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction.

(f) Notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction of the
probate court over the matters set forth in subsections (a)
through (c), if an action described in subsection (d) is
removed to the circuit court by motion of a party, or by
the probate court on its own motion, the probate court
may, in its discretion, remove any other related matter or
matters which are before the probate court to the circuit
court if the probate court finds that the removal of such
related matter or matters would be in the best interest of
the estate or in the interest of judicial economy. For any
matter removed by the probate court to the circuit court
pursuant to this subsection, the circuit court shall proceed
upon the matter de novo.
S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-302(d)-(f) (Supp. 2020). A Reporter's comment to this
section explains:

This section clearly states the subject matter jurisdiction
of the probate court. It should be noted that the probate
court has "exclusive original jurisdiction" over the
matters enumerated in this section. This means, when
read with the other Code provisions (such as subsection
(c) of this section and Section 62-3-105), that matters
within the original jurisdiction of the probate court must
be brought in that court, subject to certain provisions
made for removal to the circuit court by the probate court
or on motion of any party.

§ 62-1-302 cmt.

Here, Son's second cause of action in the Original Case was an action to contest
Mother's will. Son alleged Father probated "a fraudulent will," Father destroyed or
hid Mother's true will in which she left her entire estate to Son, and Father "created
either by undue influence, lack of capacity, or forgery a second will leaving
[Mother's] entire estate to [Father]." Son sought an order invalidating the
informally probated will. Although a will contest action may be removed to circuit
court under certain circumstances, the Probate Code requires that a will contest
action be initiated in the probate court. § 62-1-302(a)(1) (stating that the probate
court has exclusive original jurisdiction over an action to contest a will); § 62-1-
302(f) (providing for removal from probate court to circuit court of certain matters
notwithstanding the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court). Therefore, the
circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the will contest action in the
Original Case because it was not initially filed in the probate court.

Section 62-3-804(3) does not change this result as a will contest is not a claim
against an estate. See § 62-3-804 (describing the procedures for bringing claims
against an estate); S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-201(4) (Supp. 2020) (defining the term
"claims" "in respect to estates of decedents and protected persons, [to include]
liabilities of the decedent or protected person whether arising in contract, in tort, or
otherwise, and liabilities of the estate which arise at or after the death of the
decedent or after the appointment of a conservator, including funeral expenses and
expenses of administration. The term does not include estate or inheritance taxes,
or demands or disputes regarding title of a decedent or protected person to specific
assets alleged to be included in the estate.").
II. Dismissal

Son argues Rule 82, SCRCP, required the circuit court to transfer the case to the
probate court, rather than dismiss it. We disagree.

Rule 82(b), SCRCP, allows the circuit court to transfer a case if it is filed in the
wrong county or court. See Rule 82(b), SCRCP ("When an action is brought in the
wrong county or in the wrong court, the court shall not dismiss the action but shall
transfer it to any proper county or court in which it could have been brought.").
However, the circuit court in this case did not have the authority to transfer the
case to probate court because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to act in the will
contest action. See Rule 12(h)(3), SCRCP ("Whenever it appears by suggestion of
the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the
court shall dismiss the action."); S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Tran, 418 S.C. 308,
314, 792 S.E.2d 254, 257 (Ct. App. 2016) ("A court without subject matter
jurisdiction does not have authority to act.").

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.