In the Matter of the Estate of Adell Thompson Adams
2024-000234
S.C. Ct. App.Jul 2, 2025Background
- Constance Washington filed a creditor's claim against the Estate of Adell T. Adams.
- Adrian E. Adams, the Estate's personal representative, issued a notice of disallowance of Washington's claim.
- Washington appealed the probate court's order denying her claim, arguing procedural defects in the notice of disallowance.
- The probate court found the notice of disallowance valid and dismissed Washington's claim for failure to timely respond.
- On appeal, Washington argued the notice was invalid due to lack of signature and untimely filing and alleged bad faith by Adams.
- The circuit court affirmed the probate court's dismissal; Washington appealed to the Court of Appeals, which now issues this unpublished opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Notice of Disallowance | Notice not signed or timely | Signature not required; time extended | Notice valid; statute doesn't require signature |
| Timeliness of Notice of Disallowance | Notice filed late | Probate court extended filing time | Filing time properly extended by probate court |
| Bad Faith Filing by Personal Representative | Notice filed in bad faith | Not addressed/substantiated | Not preserved for appeal; court didn't rule |
| Timeliness of Claim Challenge | Challenge timely despite delay | Claimant failed to file in time | Claim barred; failed to file summons & petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Noisette v. Ismail, 304 S.C. 56 (1991) (unpreserved issues not reviewable on appeal without Rule 59(e) motion)
- Univ. of S. Cal. v. Moran, 365 S.C. 270 (Ct. App. 2005) (statutory interpretation must apply clear statutory language)
- Neely v. Thomasson, 365 S.C. 345 (2005) (fact findings of probate court must be supported by record evidence)