Dorn v. Cohen
421 S.C. 517
| S.C. | 2017Background
- Daniel B. Dorn (petitioner) sought removal of Paul and Susan Cohen as co-trustees of a special-needs trust for his ex-wife Abbie Dorn and requested a TRO limiting trust expenditures to Abbie's medical care.
- The Cohens filed a petition to ratify fees paid by the Trust and to reform Trust terms; the probate court consolidated the matters and ordered the Cohens to add Dorn, Abbie's minor children, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services as parties.
- The probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the children and both a GAL and counsel for Abbie; at trial Dorn objected to Abbie participating because she was not named in his original petition.
- The probate court concluded Abbie was an indispensable party and added her under Rule 19, S.C.R. Civ. P.; Dorn appealed, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.
- The court of appeals affirmed dismissal, applying S.C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (the general trial-court interlocutory appeal statute) and Morrow/Neeltec precedent to find no substantial-rights effect.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held that appeals from probate court are governed by the Probate Code (§ 62-1-308), not § 14‑3‑330, and concluded the probate order adding a party was not a final, immediately appealable order; it affirmed the dismissal of the appeal on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court's order adding Abbie as a party was immediately appealable | Dorn: addition of Abbie was improper and appealable as an interlocutory order | Cohens/others: probate court properly added an indispensable party; appeal was not timely or interlocutory appeal standard not met | The order was not final and thus not immediately appealable under the Probate Code (§ 62-1-308); appeal dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the court of appeals properly applied § 14‑3‑330 in assessing appealability | Dorn: court of appeals erred by applying the general trial-court interlocutory statute | Respondents: court of appeals relied on existing appellate precedent equating interlocutory appealability tests | Supreme Court: court of appeals erred to apply § 14‑3‑330; probate appeals are governed by § 62‑1‑308 and only final probate orders are appealable; vacated lower analysis but affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorn v. Cohen, 418 S.C. 126, 791 S.E.2d 313 (Ct. App. 2016) (court of appeals decision under review)
- Morrow v. Fundamental Long-Term Care Holdings, LLC, 412 S.C. 534, 773 S.E.2d 144 (S.C. 2015) (interlocutory appealability analysis referenced by court of appeals)
- Neeltec Enters., Inc. v. Long, 397 S.C. 563, 725 S.E.2d 926 (S.C. 2012) (interlocutory appeal precedent)
- Ex parte Wilson, 367 S.C. 7, 625 S.E.2d 205 (S.C. 2005) (distinguishing probate appeals and noting § 14-3-330 applies absent specialized statute)
- Fulmer v. Cain, 380 S.C. 466, 670 S.E.2d 652 (S.C. 2008) (holding only final probate orders are appealable under § 62-1-308)