 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TOLLISON10/30/1995
Billy W. Tollison, in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of Luther W. Tollison, appeals from a circuit court order which reversed the order of the probate court and found
On July 18, 1991, Luther W. Tollison was critically injured in an automobile accident and was admitted to AAMC for treatment. Tollison remained in AAMC from the date of the accident until his death on October 10, 1991. Shortly after Tollison's death, his estate was opened in the Abbeville County probate court and Billy W. Tollison was appointed personal representative. The Estate first published a notice to creditors in an Abbeville County newspaper on October 30, 1991.
On December 9, 1991, AAMC mailed a copy of its bill to the personal representative's attorney. The bill showed $193,199.21 in charges for medical services and supplies provided to Luther Tollison. The documents were sent to the personal representative's attorney at his request, and the Estate used the amount of the bill in its efforts to negotiate a settlement with the defending parties in a
On October 29, 1993, AAMC filed a statement of creditor's claim in the Abbeville County probate court. The Estate filed a notice of disallowance alleging AAMC failed to properly present its claim within the time required by law and the claim was therefore barred. AAMC challenged the disallowance in probate court, alleging its claim had been properly presented within the meaning of S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-803 and § 62-3-804 when it mailed copies of its bills to the personal representative's attorney in December, 1991. The probate court found AAMC failed to file its claim with the court within the time period set forth in section 62-3-803 and section 62-3-804. Nevertheless, the probate court found AAMC was entitled to $55,651.89 from funds the Estate received as settlement in the survival action.
Both the Estate and AAMC appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court determined the medical bills AAMC mailed to the personal representative in December of 1991 constituted proper presentation of a creditor's claim and, therefore, found AAMC complied with the applicable statutory time limitations. The circuit court reversed the decision of the probate
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appeals taken from the probate court are governed by the provisions of the Probate Code. Howard v. Mutz, 315 S.C. 356, 434 S.E.2d 254 (1993). Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-308(a) (Supp. 1994), an order or decree of the probate court shall be appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court must hear and determine the appeal "according to the rules of law." S.C. Code Ann. § 62-1-308(d) (1987). The phrase "according to the rules of law" means according to the rules governing appeals. Howard, supra. In the absence of a statute or rule prescribing a different standard of review, the circuit court must apply the same standard this court would on direct appeal. Id.
Where appeal is taken from the probate court's decision in an action in the nature of an action at law, the circuit court may not disturb the probate court's findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses there is no evidence to support them. Id. Petitions to allow claims against an estate are treated the same as any other proceeding for purposes of ascertaining their legal or equitable nature. Id. Because the proceedings herein involve claims for money due, and because such claims are ordinarily triable at law, if there is any evidence which reasonably supports the factual findings of the probate judge, her order must be affirmed. Howard, supra. The jurisdiction of both reviewing courts also extends to the correction of errors of law. Id.
II. Presentation o
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|