Estate of Livingston v. Livingston
| Decision Date | 30 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5078,Appellate Case No. 2010-179986 |
| Parties | In re: Estate of Atn Burns Livingston, Emma Lou Livingston Martin as Personal Representative of the Estate of Atn Burns Livingston, and Emma Lou Livingston Martin, Respondents/Appellants, v. Clyde B. Livingston; Miller Communications, Inc.; Citibank South Dakota, N.A.; Branch Banking and Trust Company of South Carolina; and American First Federal, Inc., Defendants, Of whom Clyde B. Livingston is, Appellant/Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Appeal From Orangeburg County
Olin Davie Burgdorf, Master-in-Equity
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
REMANDED
Andrew S. Radeker, of Harrison and Radeker, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant/Respondent.
Richard B. Ness, of Ness and Jett, LLC, of Bamberg, for Respondents/Appellants. KONDUROS, J: In this cross-appeal, the parties dispute the master's findings concerning farmland in North, South Carolina, devised in a will. Clyde Livingston argues the master erred in concluding (1) the United States Department of Agriculture (the USDA) benefits were estate property and (2) the statute of limitations barred Emma Livingston Martin's claim to collect repayment of those benefits. Emma, both personally and on behalf of the estate, contends the master erred by (1) failing to apply the probate code, (2) applying section 15-61-25 of the South Carolina Code (2009), governing partition, (3) allowing Clyde to retain one-half of the USDA subsidies, and (4) concluding judgments of an heir-at-law affects the ability of a personal representative (PR) of an open estate to convey good title to real estate. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Atn Burns Livingston died in 1999. His will named his two children, Emma and Clyde, as sole heirs and PRs of his estate. In 2000, Clyde applied for farm operator status with the USDA. Clyde signed the application in two capacities, signing as the farmer applicant and noting he was signing on behalf of the estate, which was the owner of the land. From 2000 to 2008, Clyde received USDA subsidy payments totaling $29,902.
On January 18, 2002, the probate court removed Clyde as co-PR of the estate on the ground that he and Emma could not cooperate. Emma has served as the sole PR of the estate since that time. In April 2002, Emma received a letter from the USDA regarding Clyde's status as a farm operator. She spoke with officials at the local USDA office, who informed her that Clyde had been receiving farm subsidy payments.
Emma notified her attorney, who had been assisting her with the closing of the estate, about the subsidy payments. Her attorney discussed this issue with Clyde's attorney and on May 30, 2006, Emma brought a claim seeking reimbursement for the USDA subsidies on behalf of the estate. The case was filed in the probate court and was removed to circuit court in April 2007. The case was then referred to the master on August 19, 2008. Also in 2008, Emma, as PR of the estate, began receiving the USDA subsidies. Because the issues before the master were so numerous, the case was trifurcated.
Prior to trial, the master heard Clyde's motion for summary judgment on Emma's claim concerning the USDA payments, but deferred ruling on the motion until after hearing the evidence at trial. When trial began on March 24, 2010, Emma testified and introduced the USDA records and a summary of benefit amounts paid. Clyde moved for an involuntary nonsuit on the grounds that the USDA payments were not property of the estate and the statute of limitations in section 15-3-530 of the South Carolina Code (2005) would bar the claim. The master deferred ruling on the motion.
On November 17, 2010, the master granted Clyde's motions for summary judgment and involuntary nonsuit in part and denied them in part. The master found the USDA payments were part of the estate and found Clyde liable for receiving them; however the master limited Emma's recovery to $11,690 because the "[t]he statute of limitations limits [Emma]'s recovery, on behalf of the estate, to the USDA payments that were made within three years before this action was commenced." The master determined the recoverable portion of Emma's claim involved only $23,380, and because Clyde was a devisee entitled to one half of the estate, Emma had the right to $11,690. The master further based his decision on section 62-3-619 of the South Carolina Code (2009), executor de son tort, finding half of the farm subsidy payments would have gone to Clyde because he and Emma were the sole and equal devisees of the estate despite any limitation in recovery. The master denied Emma's request for prejudgment interest because she did not plead that prejudgment interest should be awarded. Both parties appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 41(b) permits the defendant, "[a]fter the plaintiff in an action tried by the court without a jury has completed the presentation of his evidence," to move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Rule 41(b), SCRCP (emphasis added); Silvester v. Spring Valley Country Club, 344 S.C. 280, 284, 543 S.E.2d 563, 565 (Ct. App. 2001); See also Johnson v. J.P. Stevens & Co, 308 S.C. 116, 118, 417 S.E.2d 527, 529 (1992) (). Because a dismissal under these circumstances has the same effect as summary judgment, the standard for summary judgment applies.
Id. at 284-85, 543 S.E.2d at 566; Ex parte United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 365 S.C. 50, 53, 614 S.E.2d 652, 653 (Ct. App. 2005).
The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the disposition of cases not requiring the services of a fact finder. George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001). When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, this court applies the same standard that governs the trial court under Rule 56(c), SCRCP; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 493, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860 (2002). In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Sauner v. Pub. Serv. Auth. of S.C., 354 S.C. 397, 404, 581 S.E.2d 161, 165 (2003). "Once the moving party carries its initial burden, the opposing party must come forward with specific facts that show there is a genuine issue of fact remaining for trial." Sides v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 250, 255, 607 S.E.2d 362, 364 (Ct. App. 2004).
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. USDA BENEFITS
Clyde argues the USDA benefits are not estate property because they were a product of a contract between himself and the USDA based on his status as a farmer operator. He maintains the estate was not a farm operator, and as such he is solely entitled to the benefits. Furthermore, he suggests he is a cotenant entitled to possess the whole of the land, which includes the USDA benefits. We disagree.
Section 62-3-101 of the South Carolina Code (2009) states:
The power of a person to leave property by will and the rights of creditors, devisees, and heirs to his property are subject to the restrictions and limitations contained in this Code to facilitate the prompt settlement of estates, including the exercise of the powers of the [PR]. Upon the death of a person, his real property devolves to the persons to whom it is devised by his last will or to those indicated as substitutes for them in cases involving lapse,renunciation, or other circumstances affecting the devolution of testate estates, or in the absence of testamentary disposition, to his heirs, or to those indicated as substitutes for them in cases involving renunciation or other circumstances affecting the devolution of intestate estates, subject to the purpose of satisfying claims as to exempt property rights and the rights of creditors, and the purposes of administration, particularly the exercise of the powers of the [PR] under [s]ections 62-3-709, 62-3-710, and 62-3-711, and his personal property devolves, first, to his [PR], for the purpose of satisfying claims as to exempt property rights and the rights of creditors, and the purposes of administration, particularly the exercise of the powers of the [PR] under [s]ections 62-3-709, 62-3-710, and 62-3-711, and, at the expiration of three years after the decedent's death, if not yet distributed by the [PR], his personal property devolves to those persons to whom it is devised by will or who are his heirs in intestacy, or their substitutes, as the case may be, just as with respect to real property.
(emphasis added). Notwithstanding the immediate passage of title to heirs and devisees, the PR is entitled to possession of all real property during administration and has broad powers over real property during administration. S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-709 (2009); S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-201(33) (2009).
Section 62-3-709 provides in part:
Except as otherwise provided by a decedent's will, every [PR] has a right to, and shall take possession or control of, the decedent's property, except that any real property or tangible personal property may be left with or surrendered to the person presumptively entitled thereto unless or until, in the judgment of the [PR], possession of the property by him will be necessary for purposes of administration.
The PR does not need to prove to the possessor of estate properties that such properties are needed for administration. Id. Section 62-3-709 further provides, "The request by a [PR] for delivery of any property possessed by an heir or devisee is conclusive evidence, in any action against the heir or devisee for possession thereof, that the possession of the property by...
To continue reading
Request your trial