Fisher v. Huckabee ( 2019 )

The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Betty Fisher and Lisa Fisher, Appellants,
v.
Bessie Huckabee, Kay Passailaigue Slade and Sandra
Byrd, Respondents.
In the Matter of the Estate of Alice Shaw-Baker.
Appellate Case No. 2018-000566
ORDER
After careful consideration of the cross petitions for rehearing, the Court grants
Appellants' petition for rehearing, dispenses with further briefing, and substitutes
the attached opinion for the opinion previously filed in this matter. The Court
denies Respondents' petition for rehearing.
s/ Donald W. Beatty C.J.
s/ John W. Kittredge J.
s/ Kaye G. Hearn J.
s/ John Cannon Few J.
s/ George C. James, Jr. J.
Columbia, South Carolina
January 16, 2019
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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Betty Fisher and Lisa Fisher, Appellants,
v.
Bessie Huckabee, Kay Passailaigue Slade and Sandra
Byrd, Respondents.
In the Matter of the Estate of Alice Shaw-Baker.
Appellate Case No. 2018-000566
Appeal From Charleston County
Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2018-MO-039
Heard November 28, 2018 – Re-Filed January 16, 2019
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART
Lisa Fisher and Betty Fisher, both of Long Beach,
California, pro se, Appellants.
Warren W. Wills III, of the Law Office of W. Westbrook
Wills III, of Folly Beach, and Jessica Lynn Crowley, of
Crowley Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents
Bessie Huckabee, Kay Passailaigue Slade, and Sandra
Byrd.
PER CURIAM: Having carefully reviewed the record, and pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR:
1. We affirm the jury verdict upholding the validity of Alice Shaw-Baker's last
will pursuant to the following authorities: In re Estate of Pallister, 363 S.C.
437, 447, 611 S.E.2d 250, 256 (2005) (explaining an action to determine the
validity of a will or to contest a will is an action at law); York v. Conway
Ford, Inc., 325 S.C. 170, 174, 480 S.E.2d 726, 728 (1997) ("In an action at
law, on appeal of a case tried by a jury, our scope of review extends merely
to the correction of errors of law; a factual finding of the jury will not be
disturbed on appeal unless a review of the record discloses that there is no
evidence which reasonably supports the jury's finding."); First Sav. Bank v.
McLean, 314 S.C. 361, 363, 444 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1994) (noting when a
party fails to cite authority or when the argument is simply a conclusory
statement, the party is deemed to have abandoned the issue on appeal).
Moreover, we find that the purported erroneous exclusion of evidence in no
manner affected the jury verdict upholding Shaw-Baker's last will. See
Jenkins v. Waterfront Emp'rs-Int'l Longshoremen Ass'n Pension Welfare &
Vacation Fund, 260 S.C. 277, 282, 195 S.E.2d 598, 600 (1973) ("It is, of
course, well settled that the admission or rejection of proffered testimony is
largely within the sound discretion of the trial judge and that his exercise of
such discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be shown that
there was an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law and that an
appellant has been prejudiced thereby.").
2. We have independently reviewed the evidence concerning Appellants'
request to impose a constructive trust over the probate and non-probate
assets in favor of animal charities. Our review of the evidence is in accord
with that of the trial court. Appellants have no standing to assert the
imposition of a constructive trust; Lisa Fisher's argument in support of
standing borders on frivolity. We affirm pursuant to the following
authorities: Sea Pines Ass'n for Prot. of Wildlife, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Nat.
Res., 345 S.C. 594, 600, 550 S.E.2d 287, 291 (2001) ("To have standing, one
must have a personal stake in the subject matter of the lawsuit. In other
words, one must be a real party in interest. A real party in interest is one
who has a real, material, or substantial interest in the subject matter of the
action, as opposed to one who has only a nominal or technical interest in the
action. A [] person does not have standing unless he has sustained, or is in
immediate danger of sustaining, prejudice from an . . . action." (emphasis
added) (internal citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); S.C.
Code Ann. § 62-7-405(c) (Supp. 2018) ("The settlor of a charitable trust, the
trustee, and the Attorney General, among others may maintain a proceeding
to enforce the trust.").
3. We reverse the trial court's award of sanctions against Betty Fisher, in its
entirety, for three reasons. See Pee Dee Health Care, P.A. v. Estate of
Thompson, 424 S.C. 520, 538 n.11, 818 S.E.2d 758, 768 n.11 (2018) ("The
decision to impose sanctions is one in equity, and thus the appellate court
reviews the circuit court's factual findings de novo. If the appellate court
agrees with the factual findings, then it reviews the circuit court's decision to
impose sanctions and the amount of sanctions for an abuse of discretion."
(internal citation omitted)); Patel v. Patel, 359 S.C. 515, 529, 599 S.E.2d
114, 121 (2004) ("An abuse of discretion occurs either when a court is
controlled by some error of law, or where the order is based upon findings of
fact lacking evidentiary support."). First, the sanctions awarded against
Betty Fisher do not mathematically add up to the claimed total in the trial
court's final order and, at times, lack factual support in the record. See Patel,
359 S.C. at 529, 599 S.E.2d at 121 (stating a decision that lacks factual
support in the record amounts to an abuse of discretion). Second, the trial
court imposed $78,596.02 in sanctions against Betty Fisher for improper
expenditure of estate assets when it is uncontroverted Betty Fisher had no
control over those assets and nothing to do with any allegedly improper
expenditures. Third, and perhaps most importantly, although Betty Fisher
was a named party in all of the numerous actions involving Shaw-Baker's
estate, she was not in charge of the actions and merely went along with what
her daughter—Lisa Fisher, an attorney in California—advised her. From
our review of the record, it does not appear Betty Fisher individually
engaged in egregious, sanctionable conduct. As a result, we find the
decision to impose sanctions against Betty Fisher was an abuse of discretion
and vacate all judgments against her.
4. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's award of sanctions
against Lisa Fisher. Lisa Fisher has certainly engaged in abusive litigation
tactics that amount to sanctionable conduct. However, regarding the specific
sanctions amount imposed on her, we find the trial court's orders contain
addition and subtraction errors, double-counting of certain portions of the
award, a lack of evidence as to other portions of the award, and a number of
other errors, mathematical and otherwise.1 Nonetheless, pursuant to Rule
11, SCRCP, we are able to affirm a sanctions award of $16,680.28 against
Lisa Fisher, but only to that extent.2 We have endeavored to further
reconcile the various numbers cited in the sanctions orders, yet despite our
best efforts, are unable to do so. Accordingly, we reverse the balance of the
sanctions award, including the award of attorneys' fees to Respondents'
counsel. See Patel, 359 S.C. at 529, 599 S.E.2d at 121.
In sum, we: (1) affirm the jury verdict; (2) affirm the refusal to impose a
constructive trust on probate and non-probate assets; (3) reverse all judgments
against Betty Fisher; (4) reverse all judgments against Lisa Fisher in favor of
Respondents' counsel; and (5) affirm as modified the award of sanctions against
Lisa Fisher in favor of Shaw-Baker's estate in the amount of $16,680.28. Given
the protracted litigation in this and related suits and the desperate need to finish the
seemingly endless fighting over Shaw-Baker's estate, we decline to remand any of
these matters to the circuit court for further consideration. This case is concluded.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
1
We recognize the trial court drafted the orders, which Respondents' counsel
lamented at oral argument. The errors in terms of the sanctions award are
numerous. For example, although this is by no means the exclusive error, in the
2018 orders dated June 29, July 9, and July 23, the trial court stated it was crediting
Lisa Fisher with $11,462.85 in proper expenditures of estate assets for certain
categories of expenses, including paying the property taxes and insurance on
Shaw-Baker's real property in the years following her death. However, the trial
court did not actually credit her with that, or any, amount from the remaining total
of improper estate expenditures it listed.
2
Although the trial court's imposition of sanctions on Lisa Fisher was initially
based on violations of Rule 11 and the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings
Sanctions Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-36-10 to -100 (Supp. 2018), we clarify our
partial affirmance of the sanctions award rests solely on Lisa Fisher's violations of
Rule 11.