Spence v. Wingate
395 S.C. 148
S.C.2011Background
- Spence alleged Wingate breached fiduciary duties by handling her late husband Floyd Spence's congressional life insurance policy.
- Circuit court granted partial summary judgment for Wingate, holding no fiduciary duty to Mrs. Spence in relation to the policy.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue whether Wingate owed and breached such duties.
- Policy at issue was a $500,000 non-probate asset; payment terms were not controlled by the personal representative.
- Wingate advised Mrs. Spence regarding the estate and asset division, including a trust arrangement funded from probate assets; he did not disclose a conflict of interest.
- After Mr. Spence’s death, proceeds were paid to Mrs. Spence and four sons; family discussions allegedly raised concerns about the insurance distribution and potential conflicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fiduciary duty exists between Wingate and Mrs. Spence | Spence asserts a former client-duty arising from the prior relationship. | Wingate contends no duty to a non-probate asset or former client on related matters. | Duty exists; not solely determined by probate statute. |
| Whether § 62-1-109 bars any duty to Mrs. Spence | Statute does not bar duties arising from a former client relationship on related matters. | Statute negates duties to parties interested in estate assets. | Statute does not determinatively bar a duty to a former client on related matters. |
| Whether whether Wingate breached a fiduciary duty is a factual question for the jury | There are genuine issues of material fact about breach. | Breach is legal determination for the court. | Breach is a question for the jury. |
| Relation between attorney-client duties and rules of professional conduct | Former-client duties extend beyond Rule 1.9. | Rule 1.9 governs fiduciary relationships with former clients. | Duty to former clients on related matters is broader than Rule 7.9; Court clarifies scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hotz v. Minyard, 304 S.C. 225 (1991) (duty to a former client on related matters can be factually contested)
- Hendricks v. Clemson Univ., 353 S.C. 449 (2003) (existence of duty is a judicial, not jury, question)
- Weatherford v. Price, 340 S.C. 572 (Ct.App.2000) (attorney-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature)
- In re Green, 291 S.C. 523 (1987) (fiduciary duties and confidentiality principles in estate matters)
- Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 226 S.C. 94 (1954) (fiduciary duties arising from attorney-client context)
- Wise v. Hardin, 5 S.C. 325 (1874) (early articulation of fiduciary trust principles)
- Douglass ex rel. Louthian v. Boyce, 344 S.C. 5 (2001) (application of § 62-1-109 to fiduciary property defined)
- Spence v. Wingate, 385 S.C. 316, 684 S.E.2d 188, 385 S.C. 316 (Ct.App.2009) (intermediate court on fiduciary duties to former client on related matters)