In the Matter of the Estate of Paul Brandon Barringer, II (3), 6156

Background

Paul Barringer II died in 2016, leaving his wife and two daughters, and had executed multiple estate plans over time. 1
His estate documents repeatedly gave Mrs. Barringer a testamentary power of appointment over trust property. 2
Mrs. Barringer's 1998 will used a general residuary clause that the parties agree did not exercise that power, and she never changed it. 3
The dispute centers on Mr. Barringer's 20% CFRC voting share, which he allegedly transferred to Light in 2012. 4
Luzak first sued the Lights in 2016 over testamentary capacity and undue influence, seeking to restore the 1998 estate plan. 5
In 2019, Luzak sued Mrs. Barringer for a constructive trust and enforcement of an alleged contract not to revoke, and the circuit court granted summary judgment after renewed motion practice. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the circuit court need to identify the operative estate documents first? 7	The valid controlling instrument had to be chosen before recognizing any power of appointment.	The issue was unnecessary after summary judgment.	Not reached; unnecessary after reversing on constructive trust. 8
Was summary judgment proper on the contract-not-to-revoke claim? 9	Mrs. Barringer's will and surrounding evidence showed a contract not to revoke.	No writing satisfied section 62-2-701.	Affirmed; no sufficient writing or contract evidence. 10
Was section 62-2-701 a writing requirement for constructive trust claims? 11	Equitable constructive trust claims are outside section 62-2-701.	The statute bars equitable end-runs without a writing.	No; the statute does not bar constructive trust claims. 12
Was summary judgment proper on the constructive trust claim? 13	Evidence showed Mrs. Barringer impliedly promised not to disturb CFRC succession plans.	No genuine issue and no enforceable promise.	Reversed; a genuine factual dispute exists. 14
Did discovery and prior denial of summary judgment bar this ruling? 15	More discovery was needed, and prior denial controlled.	Discovery was sufficient, and new evidence allowed renewal.	No; additional discovery claim failed, and prior denial was not binding. 16

Key Cases Cited

Vaughan v. Town of Lyman, 370 S.C. 436 (S.C. 2006) (summary judgment standard and favorable-inference review 17)
Baughman v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 306 S.C. 101 (S.C. 1991) (nonmovant must show specific facts, not metaphysical doubt 18)
Kitchen Planners, LLC v. Friedman, 440 S.C. 456 (S.C. 2023) (inferences must be reasonable and genuinely factual 19)
Huggins v. Price, 96 S.C. 83 (S.C. 1913) (a testamentary power of appointment must be exercised as the instrument requires 20)
Carmichael v. Heggie, 332 S.C. 624 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998) (a donee cannot contract with a third party to bind exercise of a power of appointment 21)
In re Estate of Pallister, 363 S.C. 437 (S.C. 2005) (a competent testator may freely modify or revoke a will until death 22)
Lollis v. Lollis, 291 S.C. 525 (S.C. 1987) (constructive trust requires fraud, wrongdoing, or abuse of confidence 23)
Whitmire v. Adams, 273 S.C. 453 (S.C. 1979) (constructive trusts are equitable and may use parol evidence 24)
Searson v. Webb, 208 S.C. 453 (S.C. 1946) (constructive trusts may be proved by parol notwithstanding the statute of frauds 25)
All v. Prillaman, 200 S.C. 279 (S.C. 1942) (equity will enforce a constructive trust despite the statute of frauds 26)
Chapman v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina, 302 S.C. 469 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990) (oral promise not to exercise power of appointment enforced via constructive trust 27)
Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58 (S.C. 2003) (summary judgment should await a full and fair opportunity for discovery 28)
Smith v. Breedlove, 377 S.C. 415 (S.C. 2008) (a new summary judgment motion may be renewed after new evidence is gathered 29)
Rice v. Doe, 442 S.C. 160 (S.C. Ct. App. 2024) (changed circumstances can justify departing from a prior ruling 30)