Estate of Guide v. Spooner

Decision Date09 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 2341,2341
PartiesIn the ESTATE OF Yvonne GUIDE, Appellant, v. Jacqueline A. SPOONER, Respondent. . Heard
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals

J.R. Murphy and Kenneth B. Wingate, Sweeny, Wingate, Murphy & Barrow, Columbia, for appellant.

James B. Richardson, Jr., Svalina, Richardson & Smith, Columbia, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge.

Jacques Frank Sohn appeals from the order of the circuit court affirming a probate court order that found his mother, Yvonne Sohn Revelli Guide (decedent), was domiciled in Beaufort County at her death and admitting to probate her will of July 22, 1986. Sohn contends the Beaufort County Probate Court erred when it held it had jurisdiction to probate decedent's will when a formal testacy proceeding had already commenced in the State of New York. We agree and reverse.

The decedent died on January 6, 1990 in South Carolina. On October 31, 1988, fourteen months prior to her death, the Beaufort County Probate Court appointed Jacqueline A. Spooner, decedent's granddaughter and Sohn's niece, guardian for decedent and Hilton Head Bank and Trust as conservator. No appeal was taken from these appointments. During this proceeding, the probate court determined the decedent was a domiciliary of South Carolina.

On January 9, 1990, Sohn filed an ex parte application for Informal Appointment as Personal Representative of decedent's estate, and petitioned to be appointed Special Administrator so he could take possession of and inventory decedent's assets in South Carolina. 1 On the petition form, Sohn indicated decedent was a domiciliary of South Carolina. The probate court granted the petition.

On February 1, 1990, Sohn notified the Beaufort County Probate Court that he wished to probate his mother's estate in New York as he contended his mother was a domiciliary of New York. 2 On the following day, February 2, 1990, Sohn filed a formal testacy proceeding and Application for Preliminary Letters Testamentary in Nassau County, New York. The Nassau County Probate Court issued Sohn Preliminary Letters Testamentary on February 8, 1990. Several months later on July 20, 1990, Spooner petitioned the Beaufort County Probate Court for formal testacy of and formal appointment as personal representative under a later will of decedent. The Beaufort County Probate Court refused to transfer the case to New York finding decedent to be a domiciliary of South Carolina and, therefore, finding it had exclusive jurisdiction to probate the decedent's estate pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 62-3-201 (1987).

On appeal, Sohn argues since the proceeding filed in New York was the first "formal testacy or appointment proceeding," the Beaufort County Probate Court must stay or dismiss the probate proceeding filed in that court pending the determination of domicile by the New York Surrogate's Court pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 62-3-202 (1987) which provides:

If conflicting claims as to the domicile of a decedent are made in a formal testacy or appointment proceeding commenced in this State, and in a testacy or appointment proceeding after notice pending at the same time in another state, the court of this State must stay, dismiss, or permit suitable amendment in, the proceeding here unless it is determined that the local proceeding was commenced before the proceeding elsewhere. The determination of domicile in the proceeding first commenced must be accepted as determinative in the proceeding in this State. (Emphasis added).

Sohn asserts this statute requires all South Carolina proceedings to be stayed because formal testacy proceedings commenced in New York prior to the commencement of formal testacy proceedings in South Carolina. We agree.

One of the rules of statutory interpretation is that words of a statute should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute's operation. Anderson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., --- S.C. ----, 442 S.E.2d 179 (1994). The meaning of § 62-3-202 is clear. This provision expressly applies to a "formal testacy or appointment proceeding commenced in this state" as opposed to an informal proceeding. It is reasonable to assume that if the legislature had intended the statute to apply to both formal and informal proceedings, it would have said so either by stating that it applied to any testacy or appointment proceeding, or by expressly including informal proceedings in the first sentence. According to the plain and unambiguous terms of the statute, where proceedings are pending in this and another state, in order for this state to determine decedent's domicile a formal proceeding must have been commenced in this state before the one commenced in the other state. See Collins v. Truman, 162 Ariz. 367, 783 P.2d 813 (Ct.App.1989) (the Arizona court analyzes the parallel sections of the Arizona probate code under remarkably similar facts).

Furthermore, an analysis of the comments to § 3-202 and § 3-408 of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 27, 2021
    ...that if the "Legislature had intended [a] certain result in [a] statute, it would have said so" (citing Estate of Guide v. Spooner , 318 S.C. 335, 457 S.E.2d 623 (Ct. App. 1995) )).In 2018, the General Assembly repealed the BLRA and prohibited any future awards under that Act unless a BLRA ......
  • Hainer v. American Medical Intern., Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1997
    ...to limit or expand a statute's scope. Berkebile v. Outen, 311 S.C. 50, 426 S.E.2d 760 (1993). See also Estate of Guide v. Spooner, 318 S.C. 335, 457 S.E.2d 623 (Ct.App.1995) (if Legislature had intended certain result in statute, it would have said Nothing in § 40-33-936 evinces a Legislati......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2022
    ...a right that is included in a related provision, a right will not be implied when it does not exist); Est. of Guide v. Spooner , 318 S.C. 335, 338, 457 S.E.2d 623, 624 (Ct. App. 1995) (noting that a "provision expressly applie[d] to a ‘formal testacy or appointment proceeding commenced in t......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2022
    ... ... when it does not exist); Est. of Guide v. Spooner , ... 318 S.C. 335, 338, 457 S.E.2d 623, 624 (Ct. App. 1995) ... (noting ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT