Estate of Tollison, Matter of

Decision Date30 October 1995
Docket NumberNo. 2405,2405
Citation463 S.E.2d 611,320 S.C. 132
PartiesIn the Matter of The ESTATE OF Luther W. TOLLISON, Deceased. ANDERSON AREA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Respondent, v. Billy W. TOLLISON, Personal Representative for the Estate of Luther W. Tollison, Deceased, Appellant.
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals

Stephen K. Haigler, Glenn, Haigler & Maddox, Anderson, for appellant.

Steven C. Kirven and Todd R. Davidson, Watkins, Vandiver, Kirven, Gable & Gray, Anderson, for respondent.

HOWELL, Chief Judge.

Billy W. Tollison, in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of Luther W. Tollison, appeals from a circuit court order which reversed the order of the probate court and found the Anderson Area Medical Center, Inc. (AAMC) properly presented a $193,199.21 claim against the estate. We affirm.

On July 18, 1991, Luther W. Tollison was critically injured in an automobile accident and was admitted to AAMC for treatment. Tollison remained in AAMC from the date of the accident until his death on October 10, 1991. Shortly after Tollison's death, his estate was opened in the Abbeville County probate court and Billy W. Tollison was appointed personal representative. The Estate first published a notice to creditors in an Abbeville County newspaper on October 30, 1991.

On December 9, 1991, AAMC mailed a copy of its bill to the personal representative's attorney. The bill showed $193,199.21 in charges for medical services and supplies provided to Luther Tollison. The documents were sent to the personal representative's attorney at his request, and the Estate used the amount of the bill in its efforts to negotiate a settlement with the defending parties in a wrongful death and survival action. Ultimately, the wrongful death and survival claims resulted in a total settlement of $550,000.

On October 29, 1993, AAMC filed a statement of creditor's claim in the Abbeville County probate court. The Estate filed a notice of disallowance alleging AAMC failed to properly present its claim within the time required by law and the claim was therefore barred. AAMC challenged the disallowance in probate court, alleging its claim had been properly presented within the meaning of S.C.Code Ann. § 62-3-803 and § 62-3-804 1 when it mailed copies of its bills to the personal representative's attorney in December, 1991. The probate court found AAMC failed to file its claim with the court within the time period set forth in section 62-3-803 and section 62-3-804. Nevertheless, the probate court found AAMC was entitled to $55,651.89 from funds the Estate received as settlement in the survival action.

Both the Estate and AAMC appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court determined the medical bills AAMC mailed to the personal representative in December of 1991 constituted proper presentation of a creditor's claim and, therefore, found AAMC complied with the applicable statutory time limitations. The circuit court reversed the decision of the probate court and allowed AAMC's claim in the full amount of $193,199.21. This appeal followed.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Appeals taken from the probate court are governed by the provisions of the Probate Code. Howard v. Mutz, 315 S.C. 356, 434 S.E.2d 254 (1993). Pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 62-1-308(a) (Supp.1994), an order or decree of the probate court shall be appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court must hear and determine the appeal "according to the rules of law." S.C.Code Ann. § 62-1-308(d) (1987). The phrase "according to the rules of law" means according to the rules governing appeals. Howard, supra. In the absence of a statute or rule prescribing a different standard of review, the circuit court must apply the same standard this court would on direct appeal. Id.

Where appeal is taken from the probate court's decision in an action in the nature of an action at law, the circuit court may not disturb the probate court's findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses there is no evidence to support them. Id. Petitions to allow claims against an estate are treated the same as any other proceeding for purposes of ascertaining their legal or equitable nature. Id. Because the proceedings herein involve claims for money due, and because such claims are ordinarily triable at law, if there is any evidence which reasonably supports the factual findings of the probate judge, her order must be affirmed. Howard, supra. The jurisdiction of both reviewing courts also extends to the correction of errors of law. Id.

II. PRESENTATION OF CREDITOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE

First, we agree with the circuit court that the probate court erred in ordering partial payment of AAMC's claim against the estate. Section 62-3-803 is a nonclaim statute. See A. McCoy's, Inc. v. Garner, 281 S.C. 378, 315 S.E.2d 812 (Ct.App.1984) (finding former section 21-15-640 a nonclaim statute). Thus, unless the statute is complied with, the creditor's claim is barred. Id. Because the Estate has not challenged the amount of AAMC's claim, the claim must be allowed in full or not at all. On appeal, the Estate argues the circuit court erred in finding AAMC timely presented its claim against the Estate by delivering a copy of its bills to the personal representative's attorney. We disagree.

The presentation of claims against an estate is governed by the probate code. Here, it is undisputed the relevant statutory time limit for the presentation of AAMC's claim was within eight months of the first publication of the Estate's notice to creditors which occurred on October 30, 1991. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 62-3-801(a), -803 (Supp.1994).

As to the manner of presenting claims against an estate, S.C.Code Ann. § 62-3-804 (Supp.1994) provides:

(1) The claimant may deliver or mail to the personal representative a written statement of the claim indicating its basis, the name and address of the claimant, and the amount claimed, and must file a written statement of the claim, in the form prescribed by rule, with the clerk of the probate court. The claim is deemed presented on the first to occur of receipt of the written statement of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Haney v. Kavoukjian
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 27, 2021
    ... Katherine St. John Haney and James Byrnes as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Muriel T. Farr Plaintiffs, v. Michael E. Kavoukjian, Esq., and White &Case, LLP Defendants ... I ... Background ... This ... matter is a breach of fiduciary duty and professional ... negligence action. Plaintiffs, Katherine ... Hover , 754 S.E.2d 875, 880 (S.C. 2014) (citing In re ... Estate of Tollison , 463 S.E.2d 611, 613 (S.C. Ct. App ... 1995). A non-claim statute is distinct from the ... ...
  • Beach First Nat'l Bank v. Estate of Gurnham (In re Estate of Gurnham)
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 26, 2014
    ... 407 S.C. 194 754 S.E.2d 875 In the Matter of ESTATE OF Margaret Dever HOVER Gurnham, a/k/a Margaret D. Hover. Beach First National Bank, Respondent, v. The Estate of Margaret Gurnham, a/k/a ... a claim against the estate are governed by the procedure prescribed by this article [§§ 62–3–101 et seq.].”); In re Estate of Tollison, 320 S.C. 132, 135, 463 S.E.2d 611, 613 (Ct.App.1995) (“Section 62–3–803 is a nonclaim statute.”).         The Probate Code ... ...
  • Williams v. Williams, 2781
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 1998
    ... ... WILLIAMS, Appellant/Respondent, ... David G. WILLIAMS, as Personal Representative of the Estate ... of Ralph Howard Williams, Respondent/Appellant ... Court of Appeals of South Carolina ... of the elective share statute based on this Court's holding in In re Estate of Tollison, 320 S.C. 132, 463 S.E.2d 611 (Ct.App.1995). In Tollison, we held a creditor sufficiently complied ... the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter ... ...
  • Williams v. Williams
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1999
    ... ... WILLIAMS, Petitioner, ... David G. WILLIAMS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ralph Howard Williams, Respondent ... No. 24958 ... Supreme Court of South Carolina ... Heard ... Tollison, 320 S.C. 132, 463 S.E.2d 611 (Ct.App.1995). Tollison interprets the manner of delivery of a claim ... ...
  • 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