Bernice Caldwell v. Patricia Mitchell

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

Bernice Caldwell, Appellant,

v.

Patricia Mitchell, in her own right and as Personal
Representative, Dennis Mitchell, Sharon M. Culp,
Thomas Lamont Davis, Sumter O'Neal Caldwell, and
Latrinda Robinson, Defendants,

of whom Patricia Mitchell, in her own right and as
Personal Representative, is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2024-000259

Appeal From York County
Carolyn E. Woodruff, Probate Court Judge
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-037
Submitted January 2, 2026 – Filed February 4, 2026

AFFIRMED

John Martin Foster, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.

Charles Baxter Burnette, IV, of Frost Echols, LLC, of
Rock Hill, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Bernice Caldwell appeals the circuit court's order affirming the
probate court's order which denied her petition challenging the validity of the Last
Will and Testament of Sumter Mitchell, III (Decedent). On appeal, Caldwell
argues Decedent's will was invalid because he was illiterate and there was
insufficient evidence he understood the will form. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.1

We hold the circuit court did not err in affirming the probate court's finding that
Decedent's will was valid because, despite his illiteracy, a presumption arose that
Decedent understood the contents of the will and Caldwell, possessing the burden
of proof to show incapacity, failed to provide any evidence of Decedent's
incapacity at the time of executing the will. See Hairston v. McMillan, 387 S.C.
439, 445, 692 S.E.2d 549, 552 (Ct. App. 2010) ("An action to contest a will is an
action at law, and in such cases reviewing courts will not disturb the probate court's
findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses no evidence to support
them."); Hembree v. Est. of Hembree, 311 S.C. 192, 195, 428 S.E.2d 3, 4 (Ct. App.
1993) ("The test of capacity necessary to make a will is whether the testator knew
his estate, the objects of his affections[,] and to whom he wished to give his
property."); id. ("[T]he presumption arises upon proof of due execution of the will
that the testator knew its contents and this is sufficient to establish testator
knowledge thereof."); In re O'Neill's Est., 259 S.C. 55, 63, 190 S.E.2d 754, 758
(1972) (holding this presumption, "in the absence of other proof, [is] sufficient to
establish the fact of knowledge of the contents of the will"); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 62-3-407 (2022) ("Contestants of a will have the burden of establishing undue
influence, fraud, duress, mistake, revocation, or lack of testamentary intent or
capacity."); id. ("Parties have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to matters with
respect to which they have the initial burden of proof.").

1
To the extent Caldwell argues Decedent's will was invalid due to undue
influence, mistake, or improper manner and form, we hold these issues are
abandoned because Caldwell failed to provide any argument or supporting
authority as to these issues in her appellate brief. See First Sav. Bank v. McLean,
314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (stating that when an appellant
"fails to provide arguments or supporting authority," he is "deemed to have
abandoned th[e] issue"); State v. Howard, 384 S.C. 212, 217, 682 S.E.2d 42, 45
(Ct. App. 2009) ("An issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on
appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority.").
AFFIRMED.2

MCDONALD, HEWITT, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.