Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that an attorney owed a fiduciary duty to a former client based on their prior attorney-client relationship, notwithstanding the attorney's later representation of the estate. The court concluded that South Carolina Code section 62-1-109 did not eliminate duties concerning a non-probate congressional life insurance policy not controlled by the personal representative. It affirmed as modified the reversal of summary judgment because whether the attorney breached the fiduciary duty presented a question for the jury, while clarifying that the existence of the duty is a question of law for the court.
Holdings
- Section 62-1-109 did not bar Wingate's potential fiduciary duty because the congressional life insurance policy was a non-probate asset and was not controlled by the personal representative.
- Whether a fiduciary relationship or legal duty exists is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.
- An attorney may owe fiduciary duties to a former client after formal representation has ended, including a duty not to act adversely to the former client's interests in matters substantially related to the prior representation.
- Summary judgment was improper because a factual issue existed regarding whether Wingate breached a fiduciary duty owed to Spence concerning the life insurance policy.
Questions Presented
- Whether South Carolina Code section 62-1-109 barred a fiduciary duty owed by the estate's attorney to Spence concerning a non-probate congressional life insurance policy.
- Whether the existence of a fiduciary duty is a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.
- Whether a former attorney-client relationship can create fiduciary duties concerning matters substantially related to the prior representation after the formal representation has ended.
- Whether summary judgment was proper when a factual issue existed regarding whether Wingate breached a fiduciary duty to Spence.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (15)
- Spence v. Wingate, 385 S.C. 316, 684 S.E.2d 188 (Ct. App. 2009)(modified and affirmed)
- Hooper v. Ebenezer Senior Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 386 S.C. 108, 687 S.E.2d 29 (2009)(followed)
- Helena Chem. Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co., 357 S.C. 631, 594 S.E.2d 455 (2004)(followed)
- O'Shea v. Lesser, 308 S.C. 10, 416 S.E.2d 629 (1992)(followed)
- Hendricks v. Clemson Univ., 353 S.C. 449, 578 S.E.2d 711 (2003)(followed)
- Hotz v. Minyard, 304 S.C. 225, 403 S.E.2d 634 (1991)(clarified)
- In re Green, 291 S.C. 523, 354 S.E.2d 557 (1987)(followed)
- Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 226 S.C. 94, 83 S.E.2d 745 (1954)(followed)
- Wise v. Hardin, 5 S.C. 325 (1874)(followed)
- Weatherford v. Price, 340 S.C. 572, 532 S.E.2d 310 (Ct. App. 2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…