Pope v. Estate of Brown
| Docket Number | 2022-UP-229,Appellate Case 2019-000362 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Parties | Adele J. Pope, Appellant, v. Estate of James Brown and the James Brown 2000 Irrevocable Trust, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
Heard March 8, 2022
Appeal From Aiken County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge
Adam Tremaine Silvernail, of Law Office of Adam T. Silvernail, of Columbia, for Appellant.
J David Black, of Columbia, and Kirsten Elena Small, of Greenville, both of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, for Respondents.
This is the latest case in the string of litigation following the death of the famous singer and entertainer, James Brown. Here, Adele Pope-a former Personal Representative (PR) and Trustee of Brown's Estate-appeals a circuit court order holding she is not entitled to a fee or commission from that service.
Pope is a well-regarded and accomplished lawyer. This is acknowledged by all at various points in the record. It is also clear from the record that Pope worked hard throughout her service in an effort to protect Brown's estate plan, particularly its charitable beneficiaries. There is no doubting she took actions that benefitted the estate.
Yet, as we already noted, the circuit court denied Pope a fee and commission. Put bluntly, the court reasoned that the benefits from her administration did not outweigh the harm caused by what it saw as failing to properly handle the onslaught of complex matters associated with Brown's celebrity, the entertainment industry, and the various contests to his estate plan.
As we will explain, we might well view various parts of the case differently than the circuit court viewed them. Still, and on the whole, we believe the record supports the circuit court's decision. Thus, we affirm.
James Brown died on Christmas Day in 2006. Not long after that some of Brown's relatives became suspicious of the then PR/trustees of Brown's estate: David Cannon, Albert Dallas, and Alfred Bradley. Emergency petitions were filed to remove the PR/trustees, but the court did not remove them. Instead, it appointed Pope and Robert Buchanan as special administrators to oversee the trustees' work.
While serving as special administrators, Pope and Buchanan uncovered serious financial misconduct by Cannon, Dallas, and Bradley. This led to Pope and Buchanan being appointed as replacement PR/trustees in November 2007.
This case has a lengthy history. From this point forward, we will endeavor to describe only the background information that is relevant for the various arguments about Pope's request to be compensated for her service as a replacement PR/trustee.
In their roles as special administrators-in other words, before they were PR/trustees-Pope and Buchanan suggested a formula to the court for valuing Brown's estate because they believed doing so was an urgent priority for tax purposes. Dallas proposed hiring a New York lawyer to do this, but the circuit court stated it "would not hire a New York lawyer [because w]e got enough lawyers now" and stated it would go along with Pope and Buchanan's suggested formula if the parties got together and submitted a proposal.
One of the first things Pope and Buchanan did after being appointed PR/trustees was sell some of Brown's tangible personal property through Christie's Auction House.
The circuit court approved the sale because it agreed with Pope and Buchanan that a sale was necessary to generate funds for the estate. The estate had little to no cash on hand at that time.
In January 2008-not long after Pope and Buchanan were appointed PR/trustees- the circuit court ordered Pope and Buchanan be paid roughly $320, 000 for their service as special administrators from March of 2007 to November of 2007. That award is not at issue here. In the same order, the court decreed Pope and Buchanan would "continue to receive fees and costs on an hourly basis, as a deposit only, to any full commissions to which they may be entitled to as Personal Representatives and Trustees." The court found "that such payments are reasonable and should be made without prejudice to (but as a deposit toward) their full commissions."
Pope and Buchanan served as PR/trustees from November 2007 until May 2009. They were removed when the circuit court approved a settlement brokered by the Attorney General that removed them. Pope and Buchanan opposed the settlement because they believed its terms were contrary to Brown's desire that the majority of his estate go to charity. Though our supreme court agreed and set the settlement aside, it affirmed Pope and Buchanan's removal, finding the circuit court had cause to remove them. Wilson v. Dallas, 403 S.C 411, 448, 743 S.E.2d 746, 766 (2013).
This case is only part of the subsequent litigation that ensued. A couple months after their removal, Pope and Buchanan submitted a claim for roughly $5 million to recover the balance of their unpaid special administrator fees and receive compensation for their services as PR/trustees. The Estate (we capitalize Estate when referring to it as a litigant) sued Pope and Buchanan, claiming negligent administration. Buchanan settled. The settlement ended his claims against the Estate and the Estate's claims against him.
Pope and Buchanan were replaced as PR/trustees by Russell Bauknight. Bauknight disallowed the claim for fees and commissions. Pope filed a complaint against the Estate alleging numerous things in addition to her entitlement to the fees. The circuit court dismissed all of Pope's claims except her claim for fees and commissions.
Pope's claim proceeded to a bench trial. Three important things happened at trial that are relevant to the arguments on appeal.
First Pope asked the court to admit numerous deposition excerpts into evidence at the start of her case in reply. The Estate objected. The circuit court let Pope offer the depositions but declined to accept them as evidence before having a chance to review them, saying it could not rule "en masse." The court directed Pope to offer specific depositions as necessary during the presentation of her case and instructed the Estate to object when those requests were made.
Second the Estate introduced a settlement offer made by Pope seeking $19 million to settle this case and the Estate's suit against her. Pope objected, arguing offers of settlement are inadmissible. The Estate argued the proposal was not offered to prove liability or the worth of anyone's claims but to negate Pope's testimony that the estate should have been closed long ago. The Estate claimed it was not possible to conclude its administration of Brown's assets and liabilities when there was "an outstanding claim like a $19 million claim." The circuit court allowed the Estate to admit the settlement offer into evidence.
Third, the circuit court asked for billing documents from the time after Pope and Buchanan were removed and Bauknight was appointed. It appears the court contemplated comparing those billing records to Pope and Buchanan's records in deciding whether Pope failed to appropriately balance the benefits of litigating claims against the estate when she was PR/trustee with the financial cost continued litigation forced on the estate. The court planned to review the documents ex parte because they were under seal (as were other documents in this case); however, just after the Estate submitted the documents, the court stated,
Pope moved for a directed verdict but did not prevail. At one point during her motion for directed verdict, Pope attempted to refute the alleged unreasonableness of her offer of settlement by describing how the $19 million would have been allocated.
The circuit court issued a lengthy written ruling. The court held (as it had noted at the beginning) that Pope was entitled to the unpaid amount of her special administrator fee, but the court held Pope was not entitled to any compensation for her service as PR/trustee. The order set out many reasons for not awarding a fee. Pope's arguments on appeal center on some of those reasons. Below, we have briefly set out the circuit court's reasoning on those issues.
The circuit court found "Pope has caused undue delay [in the effort to close the Estate] through unreasonable settlement demands and that her actions required [the Estate] to resolve this case through a trial." This involves Pope's $19 million settlement offer.
The circuit court faulted Pope for the Christie's sale explaining the court based its prior approval of the sale on Pope's recommendation, but "unbeknownst to the Court at the time, Mrs. Pope did not consult a qualified professional in making this decision." It credited an expert's testimony that selling a celebrity's personal property "would be the last thing [he] would recommend doing" because the Estate cannot use the property for revenue-producing opportunities like museum exhibitions or tours once it's gone. It further found Pope "only received a bid proposal from a single auction house," which "left [her] with no ability to canvass the landscape for the best deal for the Estate and Trust." Based on these findings about the sale, the court held Pope breached her duty of prudence.
The circuit court also faulted Pope for insisting Brown's estate was worth $100 million. The circuit court found no evidence supporting that amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial