In re Estate of Holden
South Carolina Supreme Court
539 S.E.2d 703 (2000)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
William Holden, Sr. (William), died intestate, survived by his wife, Julia Holden; his two sons, William Holden, Jr. (plaintiff), and Robert Holden (the sons); and two grandchildren. The sons filed disclaimers of their interests in William’s estate. The sons’ attorney filed a letter accompanying the disclaimers, stating the sons’ intention that their disclaimers were so the property would go to Julia. The probate court informed the estate’s personal representative that after the disclaimers, a portion of the estate would go to the grandchildren. As a result, the sons filed a “Revocation and Withdrawal of Disclaimer.” The probate court appointed a guardian ad litem (defendant) for the grandchildren and found the sons’ disclaimers to be valid and the revocations to be invalid. The court found that half of the estate would go to the grandchildren. The circuit court reversed, finding that the disclaimers were invalid due to inconsistency with the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically, under the code, a qualified disclaimer was valid for tax purposes if the disclaimed interest passed without any direction from the disclaimant. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the disclaimers were valid under the code. The sons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burnett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.